08-232r1 To: J3 From: Van Snyder, originally from Michael Ingrassia Subject: Public Comment J32018 Date: 2008 August 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Commenter: Robert Corbett Subject: "imprecise description of constraints" The final clause of Section 1.6.3 should state that the syntax rules can be extended by a constraint. I suggest replacing the final clause of Section 1.6.3 with where a syntax rule is incomplete, it is restricted or extended (see C1002) by corresponding constraints and text. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The problem should instead be corrected by revising how is defined. C1002 as it is presently worded could in addition cause confusion, since it doesn't refer to the comma in R1002; rather, it refers to the comma in in Clause 1. One alternative is to replace in R1002 by , add a rule R1005a <> [ [ , ] ] and then move C1002 to be a constraint on R1005a, replacing its introductory phrase by C1002 (R1005a) The comma shall not be omitted except Another alternative is to replace R1002 by R1002 <> ( [ [ [,] \bnfc \bnfc ] ... ] ) <> ( [ [ [,] \bnfc \bnfc ] ... , ] \bnfc \bnfc ) and replace the introductory phrase of C1002 by C1002 (R1002) The comma that separates s shall not be omitted except Neither form requires implicit reference to in Clause 1 from Clause 10.