3812 2006-10-07 23:56:24 +0000 [FS] editorial: 2.1.4: ellipses 2007-11-04 06:00:05 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT Formal Semantics 1.0 Candidate Recommendation All All ASSIGNED P2 minor --- 1 jmdyck jmdyck public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 12348 0 jmdyck 2006-10-07 23:56:24 +0000 "In some cases, ellipses may be used in inference rules to handle an arbitrary number of judgments." s/may be/are/ To only talk about an arbitrary number of *judgments* gives a limited view of the role of ellipses. An ellipsis can also be used *within* a judgment to match an arbitrary number of syntactic objects (usually, items in some kind of list construct). For instance, consider 4.1.5 / Norm / rule 1. The three ellipses there are not about expanding the number of judgments in the rule; every different "version" of the rule has four judgments. Instead, two of the judgments have a varying number of patterns. Ellipses are also used in a different sense in 7.1.5 / STA / rule 1 7.1.6 / STA / rule 1 "some of the patterns may have indices as subscript." s/subscript/subscripts/ It's not clear what you mean by indices/index. E.g., in Expr1, ..., Exprn the '1' and 'n' are both subscripts, but are they both indices? Or is only the 'n' an index? If the latter, it might be more self-explanatory to use a term like "symbolic subscript" or "non-numeric subscript", e.g. "some of the patterns may have symbolic subscripts". "the number of judgment" s/judgment/judgments/ "for any number of expressions, from Expr1 to Exprn," Delete "from". "an unbounded number of rules, the first of which has 1 judgment" Actually, the first has 4 judgments, the second has 5, etc. You could say: the first of which has 1 judgment of the form 'StatEnv |- Expri: Type', the second of which has 2, etc. You should probably note that in some cases, an ellipsis can generate (must be allowed to generate) zero judgments, or zero patterns. E.g., 5.11 / Notation 2 / rule 1 4.7.1 / Norm / rule 4 However, in about 10 places, the 2006-06 CR pulls out the "zero" version of a rule-with-ellipses and redundantly presents it as a separate rule (e.g., 4.1.5 / STA / rule (1|2)). The Revision Log (G.3) doesn't mention these changes, so I'm left to wonder why. It seems like a waste of time and attention. (Whenever I see such a pair of rules, I immediately wonder, "Is the n=0 rule just a degenerate version of the n>0 rule, or does it actually require something special?", and I start picking through the rules to see which it is. It seems pointless to make readers do that when it *is* just a degenerate version of a general rule.) "When ellipses are used, the value for the index always ranges from 1 to an arbitrary number n." Usually, but not always. Here are some other examples: 0 to n-1 (4.7.3.1 / Notation / rule 2) 1 to n+1 (4.12.2 / STA / rule 1 / conclusion) 1 to m (5.11 / Notation 2 / rule 1) 2 to n (5.11 / Notation 3 / rule 2 / premise 2) 2 to k (5.11 / Notation 3 / rule 4 / premise 2) 1 to k (5.11 / Notation 3 / rule 4 / conclusion) The first example also demonstrates that within a single ellipsis, the subscripts-that-vary within a given judgment need not all have the same value. 12350 1 simeon 2006-10-09 17:20:35 +0000 reclassified as editorial/minor. - jerome 14208 2 jim.melton 2007-02-26 00:15:48 +0000 The fix for this bug does not appear in the Recommendation of 23 January 2007. It will be considered for a future publication (either an Errata document or some possible future version of the specification).