[Bug 26649] New: [XSLT30] EBNF for package-version and package version range syntax

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 26649] New: [XSLT30] EBNF for package-version and package version range syntax

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26649

            Bug ID: 26649
           Summary: [XSLT30] EBNF for package-version and package version
                    range syntax
           Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
           Version: Last Call drafts
          Hardware: PC
                OS: Windows NT
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: XSLT 3.0
          Assignee: [hidden email]
          Reporter: [hidden email]
        QA Contact: [hidden email]

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.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 26649] [XSLT30] EBNF for package-version and package version range syntax

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26649

Michael Kay <[hidden email]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <[hidden email]> ---
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+".

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 26649] [XSLT30] EBNF for package-version and package version range syntax

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26649

--- Comment #2 from Abel Braaksma <[hidden email]> ---
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.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 26649] [XSLT30] EBNF for package-version and package version range syntax

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26649

--- Comment #3 from Abel Braaksma <[hidden email]> ---
> 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 ;).

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.