(In reply to comment #0)
> A.1.1 grammar-note: xml-version
> 
> "For convenience, XML 1.0 references are always used."
>     It isn't clear what the scope/meaning of that sentence is.  Maybe change to
>     "The EBNF only has references to the 1.0 versions."
Done.

> 
>     It would be nice to have links to the 1.1 versions too.
>     Maybe the EBNF section should have something like this:
>         It is implementation-defined whether to use these:
>             [143] PITarget :: = [http:...1.0...]
>             [148] CharRef  :: = [http:...1.0...]
>             [156] QName    :: = [http:...1.0...]
>             [157] NCName   :: = [http:...1.0...]
>             [158] S        :: = [http:...1.0...]
>             [159] Char     :: = [http:...1.0...]
>         or these:
>             [143] PITarget :: = [http:...1.1...]
>             [148] CharRef  :: = [http:...1.1...]
>             [156] QName    :: = [http:...1.1...]
>             [157] NCName   :: = [http:...1.1...]
>             [158] S        :: = [http:...1.1...]
>             [159] Char     :: = [http:...1.1...]

I would rather not do this work, as it involves some production issues. 
Personally, i don't think it would really add anything but clutter.  It's easy
enough to chase down a 1.1 reference.  The bib refs are right there.

> 
> CharRef
>     The external definitions of CharRef both have a well-formedness constraint.
>     Does this apply to occurrences of CharRef in XQuery?  And if so, what error
>     occurs if a CharRef satisfies the EBNF but fails the WFC?

A WFC or other extra-grammatical constraint must be taken into account.  I've
added text to make this clear.

> 
> "In some cases, the XML 1.0 and XML 1.1 definitions may be exactly the same."
>     Why be coy?  Presumably, the spec can say which are the same.  As far as I
>     can see, for PITarget, CharRef, and S, the two definitions are the same, and
>     for QName, they're equivalent.  (Leaves NCName and Char.)
> 
>     If the 1.0 and 1.1 definitions are the same, why not simply put the
>     definition in the XQuery spec, instead of referring to it in two external
>     specs? Well, I can see why you might not want to do it for PITarget, because
>     you'd then need to have a production for 'Name', which might be confusing.
>     But for CharRef, S, and QName, I don't see a downside. In fact, for CharRef,
>     there's the added bonus that you wouldn't have to talk about how an external
>     XML WFC relates (or doesn't) to XQuery, you could just express it as a
>     grammar-note (or not).

I am happy with how these are expressed now, and don't think there's a real problem.

> 
> "just as it is not permitted in a textual XML document."
>     Delete "textual" ? (Is there any other kind of XML document?)

done.

A joint meeting of the Query and XSLT working groups considered this comment on 
July 20, 2005.  

The WGs agreed to resolve these editorial issues as listed in my previous comment.

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 change the Status
of the record to Reopened. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we
will assume you agree with the WG decision.