This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 1702 - [FS] editorial: 5.1 Version Declaration
Summary: [FS] editorial: 5.1 Version Declaration
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Formal Semantics 1.0 (show other bugs)
Version: Last Call drafts
Hardware: All All
: P2 minor
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jerome Simeon
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-07-17 23:21 UTC by Michael Dyck
Modified: 2007-01-16 17:34 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Michael Dyck 2005-07-17 23:21:42 UTC
5.1 Version Declaration

Core Grammar
[2 (Core)] VersionDecl ::= ...
    This production is never used. Might as well delete it.
Comment 1 Jerome Simeon 2006-04-10 18:27:25 UTC
I'm not sure I want to remove that rule. The version information should certainly be passed to the processor. I don't see any harm in keeping it here.
Are you ok with leaving that production in place?
- Jerome
Comment 2 Michael Dyck 2006-04-11 07:57:03 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> The version information should certainly be passed to the processor.

If you want version info represented in core queries, you have to do more than just have a VersionDecl production in the Core grammar. Currently, there's no mechanism by which a [Core] VersionDecl would be constructed. That is, there is nothing that will cause an invocation of the normalization rule in 5.1. Presumably you would need some inference rules that deal with Modules (not just MainModules).
Comment 3 Jerome Simeon 2006-04-18 03:24:32 UTC
Finally removed the corresponding grammar production as suggested, consistent with the resolution for Bug #1694.
- Jerome
Comment 4 Michael Dyck 2006-04-18 05:11:00 UTC
So did you decide that version information didn't need to be passed to the processor?

Actually, inference rules that deal with Modules might be (might have been) a good idea.
Comment 5 Jerome Simeon 2006-04-18 13:11:48 UTC
Michael:

I've been going back on forth on this. I ended up thinking that: (1) ideally having complete normalization rules for module would be probably more intuitive and clear, (2) there is nothing broken right now and we do not use the productions you mention, and it is touching on a pretty complex part of the spec.

At such a late point in the game, I think that fixing the editorial problem is what we are trying to do. So I opted for the option that is less intrusive (and less work!).

Hope it makes sense.

- Jerome
Comment 6 Michael Dyck 2006-04-18 19:03:19 UTC
Yeah, I think so.