Jim, if you reassign this one to me, I will fix the sections mentioned where appropriate.

I think I am correct when I say that full text should only be hyphenated when it is an adjective (full-text operators), not when it is a noun (full text). So I think the title of our document is also incorrect. I will fix that as well if we areee to do so. 

Pat

I agree with Pat's partitioning.  Hyphens are appropriate in a compound adjective, but not in the noun equivalent.  Exception: We would not want "XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Full-Text specification" to be abbreviated "XQuery Full Text", but would want to keep it as "XQuery Full-Text" (if we ever used such an abbreviation, which I'm not sure we do). 

Nice to have some grammatical precision, none of this side-effecting verbalizing that goes on elsewhere.

But in "XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Full-Text specification", Full-Text is not being used adjectivally. This phrase means "Specification of XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Full Text". If there's a compound adjective here it's the entire phrase XQuery-1.0-and-XPath-2.0-Full-Text. Hyphenating it would suggest that there are two versions of the XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 specification, a full-text one and a short-text one, and that we are referring to the latter.

It would be really nice if we could find a better name for this technology than "full text", but I guess that's asking too much. "Text Retrieval"?

Michael Kay

I tried early on to get our initiative renamed to drop "Full" from our titles. I recommmended "Text Search" and "Tokenized Text Search". Neither had legs. If I remember correctly folks argued that "Full Text" was so enshrined in the venacular it should stand. At this point I think we should stay with "Full Text" and keep the question simple:

Should the title of the FT language spec be:
XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Full Text 1.0
XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Full-Text 1.0 Language
XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Full-Text 1.0 Specification

Or should we just leave it is:
XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Full-Text 1.0

Pat

I take Mike's point and blush at my failure to recognize the error of my statement.  It's too late to change the shortname from "...fulltext...", so I think that it would be too confusing to change the name of the spec to anything that doesn't include that term ("full" followed by "text"). 

However, it is not too late to change the spelling of the specification's title from "Full-Text" to "Full Text", and I encourage the TF to agree that change and recommend it to the WGs. 

(In reply to comment #4)

> Should the title of the FT language spec be:
> XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Full Text 1.0
> XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Full-Text 1.0 Language
> XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Full-Text 1.0 Specification
> 
> Or should we just leave it is:
> XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Full-Text 1.0
> 
> Pat
> 

The choice there suggests various words, but all the options look horrible as a title that includes three version numbers is always going to look strange.

Since the FT spec has its own version number, and this version of the spec states what versions of xquery and xpath it extends, having the xquery and xpath version numbers in the title is just confusing. It's not as if there could ever be an
XQuery 2.0 and XPath 3.0 Full-Text 1.0
If the Xquery spec is updated, there would need to be an updated version of this as well, so I suggest

XQuery and XPath Full-Text 1.0


David
[just a comment from an interested observer, which you may feel free to ignore at will, no specific reply is needed]

I agree that adjectival uses should be hyphenated.

I think the only non-adjectival uses are in thes name of the language/documents. Perhaps those should be made adjectival too, e.g. "Full-Text Facility". (Is there a reason why Update and Scripting are "facilities" but Full Text isn't?)

I agree that "Full Text" isn't a good name. (It suggests that current XQuery+XPath are somehow "partial text".)

I heartily agree with David Carlisle that three version numbers in one title is too many, and support "XQuery and XPath Full Text 1.0" (or "XQuery and XPath Full-Text Facility 1.0").

In http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5211#c7, the question "(Is there a reason why Update and Scripting are "facilities" but Full Text isn't?)" was asked.

In fact, Scripting is not a "facility", but an "extension".  Documents that use the word "scripting facility" (capitalized in any manner) are incorrect. 

The reasons for one (Update) being a "facility", another (Scripting) an "extension", and a third (Full Text) neither is historical and nothing more.  It is too late to change our minds about Full Text and Update because they have advanced to Last Call WD status.  It is not too late for Scripting, but the shortnames have been approved using the sequence "xquery-sx", which would be confusing if the document name were changed to use, say, "facility". 

In http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5211#c6, the assertion was made that "It's not as if there could ever be an XQuery 2.0 and XPath 3.0 Full-Text 1.0". 

I'm not as confident of that statement as the author of it is.  I would be somewhat surprised if we were to go straight from Full Text version 1.0 for the current generation of XQuery/XPath to Full Text version 2.0 for XQuery 2.0 and XPath 3.0.  To my way of thinking, the existing "1.0" is meant to imply that this is the first version applicable to the current generation (major version number) of the parent specs. 

On the other hand, it's only fair to point out that the Update Facility and its Requirements and Use Cases documents all call themselves "XQuery Update Facility 1.0", and NOT "XQuery 1.0 Update Facility 1.0". 

So, feeling mildly off center, I yield to the suggestion that we rename the document (and its Requirements and Use Cases documents!) to use the name "XQuery and XPath Full Text 1.0" (if there is a real consensus, then we might insert "Facility", "Extension", or "Brother-In-Law" before the "1.0").  (I note in passing that the Normative References in the Full Text spec spell the names of the Requirements and Use Cases documents incorrectly -- the final "1.0" is missing.)

The titles of and internal title references to the 3 Full Text documents have been updated to:
XQuery and XPath Full Text 1.0
XQuery and XPath Full Text 1.0 Use Cases
XQuery and XPath Full Text 1.0 Requirements

Throughout the document the words "full text" are hyphenated only when when
in the adjective form (full-text operators), not when used in the noun form(full text), and not when they name the spec or one of the other Full Text documents.

Jochen, if you approve of the changes, please mark this bug closed.

The changes will appear in the internal version after the next build and in the next public working draft.