1497 2005-06-14 20:14:19 +0000 Editorial: grammar in 7.3.1 2006-09-18 10:36:18 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT Functions and Operators 1.0 Last Call drafts PC Linux CLOSED FIXED P2 minor --- 1 frans.englich ashok.malhotra public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 2766 0 frans.englich 2005-06-14 20:14:19 +0000 Hello, While doubtable whether there actually is an error, the harm is small for considering if there is: In the fourth paragraph in section 7.3.1, found in XPath Function & Operators of the fourth April Working Draft, the following sentence exists: "For alignment with the [Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0], applications may choose collations that treat unnormalized strings as though they were normalized (that is, that implicitly normalize the strings)." I find the text in the paragraph to sound strange, the second "that". From the top of my head, I would rather have it to read: "For alignment with the [Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0], applications may choose collations that treat unnormalized strings as though they were normalized (that is, to implicitly normalize the strings)." "that" replaced with "to". Cheers, Frans 4275 1 mike 2005-06-14 20:36:28 +0000 I think the original is more grammatical than the proposed replacement, though the whole paragraph could be a lot more readable: It is often desirable that a collation should treat two strings as equal if the two strings are identical after Unicode normalization. One strategy for achieving this (recommended by the [Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0]) is to ensure that all strings are subjected to early Unicode normalization. Some collations may require this, and may fail at run-time if they encounter data that is not correctly normalized. However, it is not always feasible to achieve this. Another strategy is for the collation to implicitly normalize strings before comparison. Collations based on the Unicode collation algorithm use this approach. 4283 2 ashok.malhotra 2005-06-15 21:56:39 +0000 Thank you for your comment. The paragraph could, indeed be made more readable. I have edited the text based on your and Michael Kay's comment. Ashok Malhotra