This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
A.1.1 grammar-note: reserved-function-names [See a later comment for suggested alternate wording.] "Some unprefixed function names may be confused by the parser" Using the usual spec-y interpretation of "may", this means that parsers are allowed to be confused! Instead, maybe: Parsers could be confused if we allowed unprefixed function names with the same spelling as some keywords. "function name invocation" Change to "FunctionCall". "an incomplete IfExpr" Maybe change to "the start of an IfExpr". (Otherwise someone might say, "But an incomplete IfExpr is illegal.") (alternative?) In leading-lone-slash, you gave an easy way to construct a semantically equivalent query. How about for this? I think there's no local 'fix' -- you have to either rename the function, or else use a prefixed name, which could involve binding the namespace to a prefix.
I think the point about the parser is well taken. Here is a candidate rewording: Unprefixed function names spelled the same way as language keywords could make the language harder to recognize. For instance, "if(foo)" could be taken either as a FunctionCall or as the beginning of an IfExpr. Therefore it is not legal syntax for a user to invoke functions with unprefixed names which match any of the names in A.3 Reserved Function Names. A function named "if" can be called by binding its namespace to a prefix and using the prefixed form: "library:if(foo)" instead of "if(foo)". [Alternatively, "Therefore functions with local names matching ... MUST be invoked in a prefixed form, not in an unprefixed form."] [Optionally show parse trees from proposal in bug 1390.]
(In reply to comment #1) > I think the point about the parser is well taken. Here is > a candidate rewording: > > Unprefixed function names spelled the same way as language > keywords could make the language harder to recognize. For > instance, "if(foo)" could be taken either as a FunctionCall or > as the beginning of an IfExpr. Therefore it is not legal > syntax for a user to invoke functions with unprefixed names > which match any of the names in A.3 Reserved Function Names. > > A function named "if" can be called by binding its namespace > to a prefix and using the prefixed form: "library:if(foo)" > instead of "if(foo)". Adapted. > [Optionally show parse trees from proposal in bug 1390.] > No, I don't want to start showing parse trees in the spec.
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.
Closing bug because commenter has not objected to the resolution posted and more than two weeks have passed.