This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 4705 - [FT] editorial: 3.3 Match Options
Summary: [FT] editorial: 3.3 Match Options
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Full Text 1.0 (show other bugs)
Version: Last Call drafts
Hardware: All All
: P2 minor
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jochen Doerre
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-06-23 10:00 UTC by Michael Dyck
Modified: 2007-10-29 17:41 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Michael Dyck 2007-06-23 10:00:41 UTC
3.3 Match Options

[1]
para 6
"and at each FTPrimary the locally"
    s/FTPrimary/FTPrimaryWithOptions/

[2]
"the locally (like postfix operators) specified"
    I think the parenthetical is clunky there. Just delete it.

[3]
para 7
"The order in which effective match options for an FTWords are applied is
subject to some constraints:"
    In the production for FTMatchOption, the order of nonterminals in the
    right-hand side respects the constraints, which is nice. It would be
    good if the subsections of 3.3 were also in this order.

[4]
para 8
"[Definition: This order is called the match option application order.]"
    This is not a good standalone definition. Instead, at para 7:
        [Definition: The order in which effective match options for an
        FTWords are applied is called the match option application order.]
        This order is subject to some constraints:

[5]
example 2
'/book/title ftcontains "usability" case insensitive  ...'
    This example might be more helpful if it put each option on a separate
    line.
Comment 2 Michael Dyck 2007-10-26 22:47:21 UTC
Re [4]: rather than making the suggested change in para 7 (before the two constraints), you made a change in para 8 (after the constraints), which results in some unnecessary repetition between the two paras. I still prefer my original suggestion.
Comment 3 Jochen Doerre 2007-10-29 17:11:24 UTC
Thanks for catching this... I haven't read carefully. Now fixed.
Comment 4 Michael Dyck 2007-10-29 17:41:55 UTC
Thanks! Closing now.