Second pattern is problematic

See OAI#3818 (comment)

Author: ralfhandl

versions/3.0.4.md

@@ -4020,7 +4020,7 @@ parameters:
     type: string
 ```
 
-This example is equivalent to RFC6570's `{?foo*,bar}`, and **_NOT_** `{?foo*}{&bar}`, which is problematic because if `foo` is not defined, the result will be an invalid URI.
+This example is equivalent to RFC6570's `{?foo*,bar}`, and **_NOT_** `{?foo*}{&bar}`. The latter is problematic because if `foo` is not defined, the result will be an invalid URI.
 The `&` prefix operator has no equivalent in the Parameter Object.
 
 Note that RFC6570 does not specify behavior for compound values beyond the single level addressed by `explode`. The results of using objects or arrays where no behavior is clearly specified for them is implementation-defined.