This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Same issue as 28018 but on a different component and with mostly different occurrences. I say "mostly" because the non-normative presentation of productions re-occurs in this text: *** In the grammar productions in this document, named symbols are underlined and literal text is enclosed in double quotes. For example, the following productions describe the syntax of a static function call: [137] FunctionCall ::= EQName ArgumentList [121] ArgumentList ::= "(" (Argument ("," Argument)*)? ")" *** Moreover, there are 455 uses of the term "example," the vast majority of which are not inside Notes nor are they labeled as Examples, to say nothing of being unnumbered, which prevents precise referencing. All examples should be labeled, numbered and when multi-part, given sub-example numbering.
The XML Query and XSLT WGs discussed this bug report on today's call. The introduction to the XQuery spec explains that examples are not normative. The WGs believe that the other passages you mention are instances of the phenomenon described: they are non-normative text, marked as non-normative by being explicitly labeled as examples. If in any specific passage it is not clear whether a given sentence is a continuation of an example or a normative statement following the example, then a bug report against the specific passage is certainly in order. In general, the editors try to take some care that it's clear where examples begin and end, but of course slips are possible. In short, the WGs don't see an issue here. Accordingly, I am marking this issue WORKSFORME. Patrick, if you believe the arguments given above adequately address your concerns, or if despite your lack of any such belief you are willing to accept the WGs' disposition of your comment, please indicate as much by changing the status of the bug report from RESOLVED to CLOSED. If you are not satisfied with the WGs' handling of the issue, please indicate so by changing the status from RESOLVED to REOPENED, and explain why you do not find the arguments compelling. If we haven't heard from you in two weeks, we will take silence for consent. Thank you for your comments; I am sorry we were unable to resolve this in the way you would have wished.