12280 2011-03-10 10:48:26 +0000 [FO 3.0], Section 4.5.1: Lack of clarity in the definition of a format-token 2012-01-19 09:12:03 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT Functions and Operators 3.0 Working drafts PC Linux CLOSED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 oneil mike public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 46602 0 oneil 2011-03-10 10:48:26 +0000 In the description of the format-token criteria, it does not clearly state what is a format-token. This would help in the understanding of the bullet point "Any other format token indicates a numbering sequence...". To help in the clarification please see an email I received from Christian Grun: 1) format-integer(1, 'bo') This query is accepted, as the character 'b' is interpreted as format token that "indicates a numbering sequence in which that token represents the number 1 (one)" [1]. The trailing "o" seems to be ignored; I would rather have expected it to be interpreted as optional "format modifier". 2) format-integer(1, 'oo') This query is rejected with the message "The format modifier is not valid". My assumption that the first "o" is interpreted as an optional "format modifier"? 3) format-integer(1, 'boo') The (expected) error of this query might underline the assumption for Query 2. 4) format-integer(1, 'bb') This query is accepted, and the trailing 'b' is ignored (which is probably ok, as I'm not sure if this case is reflected by the spec). To arrive at a consistent behavior, it might suffice to decide how trailing, unparsed characters are to be treated, and to always interpret the first character(s) as "primary format token". 46607 1 mike 2011-03-10 14:04:03 +0000 To add an observation: (a) The rules for how to handle format-tokens were taken from the XSLT 2.0 spec, where a format-token is described as "a maximal sequence of alphanumeric characters". The definition itself wasn't transferred to F+O. (b) We can't use exactly the same definition in F+O because the format modifier follows directly after the format token. This was to align with format-date and friends - which has the same problem, and we can't easily change the syntax for compatibility reasons. It's not particularly elegant, but I propose that the format-token is defined by changing this sentence: * A picture consists of a primary format token, followed by an optional format modifier. to read * A picture consists of a primary format token, followed by an optional format modifier. If the picture is two or more characters in length and the final character is one of those permitted as a format modifier, then the primary format token consists of the entire picture except for its final character; otherwise the primary format token is the entire picture. Should also add a similar clarification to format-date. 46722 2 mike 2011-03-15 15:54:55 +0000 The WG accepted the proposal in comment #2 62891 3 mike 2012-01-19 09:12:03 +0000 For a continuation of this issue, see bug #14858