This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
First reported by mail in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xsl-wg/2014Aug/0009.html (member only), recreated here for trackability. Partial copy from that mail, only covering the actual proposal: (where I use angle brackets, it is defined in XPath). Syntax for version (xsl:package/@package-version): PackageVersion ::= NumericVersion ("-" VersionNamedPart)? VersionNamedPart ::= <NCName> NumericVersion ::= <IntegerLiteral> ("." <IntegerLiteral>)* Syntax for version ranges (xsl:use-package/@package-version): PackageVersionRange ::= AnyVersion | VersionRanges AnyVersion ::= "*" VersionRanges ::= VersionRange (<S>? "," <S>? VersionRange)* VersionRange ::= (PackageVersion? <S> "to" <S>)? SingleVersionRange SingleVersionRange ::= PackageVersion | VersionGreater | VersionComponent VersionGreater ::= PackageVersion "+" VersionComponent ::= PackageVersion ".*" Inasmuch as I could verify by hand, the syntax above matches the syntax in the specification, with one exception, the EBNF allows for "1.2 to 3.4+", which is currently not allowed by the spec (it only allows "1.2 to 3.4" or "1.2 to 3.4.*"). But I don't think this change is bad per se, I even think it is more consistent.
The WG accepted the proposal to use EBNF syntax. I have applied this with minor editorial changes, nad have rewritten the section describing the semantics of the different version ranges to match the new style. I haven't included the syntax change to permit "1 to 3.4+". I wasn't sure what it was supposed to mean, other than being another way of writing "1+".
Well, the comment on "1.2 to 3.4+" was meant to signify that the current text (prior to introducing EBNF) does not mention it, nor does it explicitly forbid it. With the EBNF, that syntax becomes explicitly allowed. Of course, like you wrote, it is just a clumsy way of writing "1.2+". If we want to explicitly disallow that syntax, I can alter the EBNF. But I think allowing it is fine, the explanation of the syntax is clear enough and not having an example of this edge case does not hurt.
> I haven't included the syntax change to permit "1 to 3.4+". Missed that, please ignore my prev. comment. Just as well, if we explicitly forbid it by the EBNF (but I haven't seen your changes yet), it is perhaps cleaner. But that was the whole point of adding the EBNF: making it (very) explicit ;).