2287 2005-09-22 13:39:20 +0000 [xqueryx] forclause and letclause 2005-09-29 10:30:47 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT XQueryX 1.0 Last Call drafts PC Windows XP CLOSED WONTFIX P2 normal --- 1 davidc jim.melton public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 6410 0 davidc 2005-09-22 13:39:21 +0000 The XQuery concrete syntax allows multiple for (or similarly let) bindings in a FLWOR expression to be separated by either "for" or "," however there is no semantic distinction between these two cases. In Xquery you need to use "for" rather than "," for the first binding, and the for the first binding after a let, but in XQueryX even this distinction is not required as the named elements remove any ambiguity anyway. I think that the schema can be simplified (and improved) by dropping forClauseItem and letClauseItem and instead using these definitions as the definitions of forClause and letClause. David 6581 1 jim.melton 2005-09-29 09:30:50 +0000 The Working Group discussed this comment and explored several factors. We finally concluded that we do not wish to limit the "coding style" that XQueryX generators are permitted to use. While recognizing that the two styles are semantically equivalent, we also recognize that the authors of some XQueryX generators will prefer to use the comma-separated style and others to use the for-separated style. Thus, the WG declines to adopt the proposed change. Please let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision. 6592 2 davidc 2005-09-29 10:30:47 +0000 > we do not wish to limit the "coding style" I read that after I wrote my closing comments for bug 2262, and as you will see they accurately predicted this outcome. I disagree with that wish (and so with the outcome of this report) but for reasons outlined in 2262 I am closing this report without formal objection.