John Lumley

If maximal matching on `TypeQualifier` is required, it needs to be stated in the extra-grammatical notes of the spec. (Such is already done for occurrence indicators on function types.) If...

I'm not sure this is just an editorial fix - there is a fundamental ambiguity...

I use the enclosing mode extensively (preprocessed to a 3.0 equivalent) and find myself in similar case - mode-local functions and even scoped 'global' variables would help... the alternative is...

> Did you already have a chance to parse XQUF and XQFT? No - I haven't - (actually I've never used XQ or any of its derivatives;-). But I should...

I think it's in part how much lookahead you are prepared for. I should explain that my use of an Earley parser with my iXML versions of the grammars allows...

> Did you already have a chance to parse XQUF and XQFT? I've managed to generate the current state XQUF grammar and test it against the 814 test expressions in...

> IIRC, that's because that's the way BaseX specifies the precedence, allowing you to have all 3 (arrow, transform, cast) expressions together. The current grammar has the same ordering but...

> I'll have a look at the XQFT set next week (I must admit I'd never seen it before) but am slightly puzzled as to where I can get a...

@ChristianGruen Is there any need to look at the scripting extension for XQ? I can't find any spec references, nor any test cases for it?

> Two immediate problems here: (a) some operators such as `otherwise` are missing; (b) I don't understand why decimal format properties such as `exponent-separator` have leaked into the list. Further...