1702 2005-07-17 23:21:42 +0000 [FS] editorial: 5.1 Version Declaration 2007-01-16 17:34:47 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT Formal Semantics 1.0 Last Call drafts All All CLOSED FIXED P2 minor --- 1 jmdyck simeon public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 4788 0 jmdyck 2005-07-17 23:21:42 +0000 5.1 Version Declaration Core Grammar [2 (Core)] VersionDecl ::= ... This production is never used. Might as well delete it. 9117 1 simeon 2006-04-10 18:27:25 +0000 I'm not sure I want to remove that rule. The version information should certainly be passed to the processor. I don't see any harm in keeping it here. Are you ok with leaving that production in place? - Jerome 9134 2 jmdyck 2006-04-11 07:57:03 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > The version information should certainly be passed to the processor. If you want version info represented in core queries, you have to do more than just have a VersionDecl production in the Core grammar. Currently, there's no mechanism by which a [Core] VersionDecl would be constructed. That is, there is nothing that will cause an invocation of the normalization rule in 5.1. Presumably you would need some inference rules that deal with Modules (not just MainModules). 9287 3 simeon 2006-04-18 03:24:32 +0000 Finally removed the corresponding grammar production as suggested, consistent with the resolution for Bug #1694. - Jerome 9289 4 jmdyck 2006-04-18 05:11:00 +0000 So did you decide that version information didn't need to be passed to the processor? Actually, inference rules that deal with Modules might be (might have been) a good idea. 9292 5 simeon 2006-04-18 13:11:48 +0000 Michael: I've been going back on forth on this. I ended up thinking that: (1) ideally having complete normalization rules for module would be probably more intuitive and clear, (2) there is nothing broken right now and we do not use the productions you mention, and it is touching on a pretty complex part of the spec. At such a late point in the game, I think that fixing the editorial problem is what we are trying to do. So I opted for the option that is less intrusive (and less work!). Hope it makes sense. - Jerome 9297 6 jmdyck 2006-04-18 19:03:19 +0000 Yeah, I think so.