29700 2016-06-21 11:33:09 +0000 [XP31] ws:explicit wording on comments is a tad unfortunate 2016-07-20 14:02:46 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT XPath 3.1 Candidate Recommendation PC Windows NT CLOSED FIXED P2 minor --- 1 abel.braaksma jonathan.robie andrew_coleman jmdyck public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 126804 0 abel.braaksma 2016-06-21 11:33:09 +0000 The current test on ws:explicit in production rules states: <quote> ws: explicit /* ws: explicit */ means that the EBNF notation explicitly notates, with S or otherwise, where whitespace characters are allowed. In productions with the /* ws: explicit */ annotation, A.2.4.1 Default Whitespace Handling does not apply. Comments are also not allowed in these productions. </quote> The word "Comments" is underlined and points to the production rule for comments. This suggests that for instance the following is disallowed: Q{http://(:comment:)/test} But I think that's not true, in fact, I think the above EQName is valid and the whole string including the comment is part of it. That is, the URI is equal to "http://(:comment:)/test", not "http:///test", and it should not throw a syntax error. Essentially, such comment is not a comment. Perhaps a better wording would be to say: <proposal> Comments are not recognized as comments in these productions and the characters "(", ":" and ")" may or may not be allowed by the production rule. </proposal> 126805 1 jmdyck 2016-06-21 14:19:16 +0000 (In reply to Abel Braaksma from comment #0) > > Essentially, such comment is not a comment. Right. More precisely, that sequence of characters is not a Comment. So it is unaffected by rules about Comments. > Perhaps a better wording would be to say: > > <proposal> > Comments are not recognized as comments in these productions I don't think that's an improvement, as it implies that something can be a comment and yet not be 'recognized as' a comment. I agree that the 'ws: explicit' blurb could probably be improved, but I don't think that's how to do it. (Personally, I'd be okay with removing the sentence "Comments are also not allowed in these productions", since I believe that's covered by "A.2.4.1 does not apply", but we probably added it for a reason. I'll look into that.) 126807 2 jmdyck 2016-06-21 14:58:24 +0000 (In reply to Michael Dyck from comment #1) > > (Personally, I'd be okay with removing the sentence "Comments are also not > allowed in these productions", since I believe that's covered by "A.2.4.1 > does not apply", but we probably added it for a reason. I'll look into that.) The sentence was added to the XQuery 1.0 source on 2004-06-07, but the commit log doesn't say why (or give a reference to a decision or discussion). So far, I haven't been able to find any discussion in the archives. 126808 3 abel.braaksma 2016-06-21 15:05:32 +0000 > but we probably added it for a reason. I'll look into that. You may have to dig deep, the sentence was there when this section was first added in 2004, this is the first time I encountered it: https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xpath20-20040723/#ExplicitWhitespaceHandling I'd have to guess, but since comments are typically allowed where ignorable whitespace is allowed, this sentence may have been added with an intended meaning such as: "Comments are allowed between terminals, but not between terminals or anywhere within productions marked ws:explicit. Typically, comments are allowed where whitespace is allowed, but not were we use the explicit production S.". 126809 4 abel.braaksma 2016-06-21 15:08:44 +0000 (apologies, cross-posted) 126932 5 andrew_coleman 2016-07-08 13:02:32 +0000 At the meeting on 2016-07-05, the WG agreed to resolve this as follows: Decided: Adopt this text as the resolution of Bug 29700: Comments are also not allowed in these productions except where the Comment non-terminal appears. Action 649-02: Jonathan to add the text "Comments are also not allowed in these productions except where the Comment non-terminal appears." as the resolution of Bug 29700. 127007 6 abel.braaksma 2016-07-20 14:02:46 +0000 This was resolved as per confirmation here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsl-query/2016Jul/0018.html. Checked, looks good, thanks.