thanks for that. Comments on your issues in-lined below.
On 11 Sep 2008, at 18:29, Donal K. Fellows wrote:
[...]
Bugfix: inconsistent paragraph separation on page 3
Done.
Bugfix: example on page 6 uses DocumentNode to enclose XPath without any
namespace mappings; suggested fix: note in text above that this is an
abbreviated form for example purposes.
Added the necessary mappings to be consistent with the rest of the document.
Bugfix: example on page 8 has similar problems, and has "[sweep]" just
above it (not a syntax recognized from elsewhere or defined here!)
though it looks like a broken reference to another document?
Added the necessary mappings to the example. Replaced "[sweep]" with "Sweep".
Bugfix: page 9 contains many uses of the odd syntax described above.
Those notations refer to their definition in the XPath specification. Therefore I refrained from changing that syntax.
Bugfix: footnote 1 on page 9 contains multiple references to the same
document!
Duplicates removed.
Bugfix: inconsistent paragraph separation on page 10
Fixed.
Query: is it worthwhile stating what happens with substring selection
when using multiple assignments into the same field and some of those
assignments change the length of the overall string? (Question brought
about by reference to Example 3 (pp11-13) though that doesn't have this
problem.)
I would argue that this is implementation dependant. I think this is not only a corner case but also a case where I doubt we will ever reach consensus on what the right way would be to behave in this case. I would therefore let the market decide in their implementations.
Bugfix: on too many pages to list, we're inconsistent about formatting
of XML QNames and XPath fragments.
Fixed (completely, I hope). Were many spots to fix ...
Query: is it worth using an abstract mathematical description of sweep
functions? (They're a pair, consisting of a maximal count and a function
from an integer to the DOM node to substitute.)
I thought about this right from start. I would say nay for practical reasons. The document is already fairly abstract. Making it even more abstract would make it much more difficult to relate/translate to a real implementation, I guess.
Query: is it worth noting that implementations may wish to constrain the
allowable space of values for LoopDouble/@step to exclude zero?
The description of the LoopInteger function gives an explicit value range that implementations must support. I fail to see a reason for implementations to further constrain that value range.
Bugfix: in Examples 7-8 (pp31-33) should explicitly note that the
problematic elements are in red. Maybe make them bold too
Fixed.
Bugfix: Title of "Further Examples" section is surprising; "FileSweep
Examples" might have been better.
Fixed.
Query: is it worth giving each example a name and not just a number?
The first paragraphs in the example sections outline the purpose of the examples. Some examples are very similar but different, so they would end up with the same crisp title unless it would be almost ridiculously long ...
Bugfix: The copyright notice should use a copyright symbol and not "(C)"
where possible (really!) Here's a free one: © Don't wear it out. ;-)
Fixed.
Bugfix: The sweep namespace MUST use 'ogf' and not 'ggf'. Fix on pp4,
22-24, 26-28, 30-32, 34, 43, 45, 47. (But sweepfunc and file-sweep are
both fine.)
Fixed. several occasions of "sweepfunc" were actually inconsistently using the GGF namespace. *argh*
I am currently missing one final piece of information, i.e. Geoff's affiliation details to put into the final draft, before publishing draft 22, which I consider ready for submission. As soon as I have Geoffs details I will publish the draft to the Mailing list and Gridforge.
Cheers,
Michel
--
Michel Drescher
Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe, Ltd.
Hayes Park Central
Hayes End Road
Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE
Reg. No. 4153469
+44 20 8606 4834