W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-microxml@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Proposed extension of data model

From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:42:41 +0700
Message-ID: <CANz3_EYhWciFkF5te+eayH7gkicgbFsVPV0UQUJOsXy9ThF2Qw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Lahey <clahey@clahey.net>
Cc: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, Michael Sokolov <sokolov@falutin.net>, liam@w3.org, Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>, "public-microxml (public-microxml@w3.org)" <public-microxml@w3.org>
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Chris Lahey <clahey@clahey.net> wrote:

> Is it okay that your "microxml parser" will have cases where the data
> model generated doesn't produce a valid microxml document?  Is the
> plan to have it generate invalid microxml that your parser will parse
> to the same data model?
>

Yes and yes. I haven't done the 2nd part yet but I think it's achievable.
(At least, I either need to add # as a name start char or rename my fake
root element to, say, $doc).)


> Are you going to create a BNF for the language that your parser
> handles?  I know that document ::= [#x0-#x10FFFF]* is a BNF for the
> language that your parser handles, but it would be awesome to have one
> that suggests what choices your parser makes as it parses.
>

See https://github.com/jclark/microxml-er/blob/master/recovery.md


> The reason I ask is that if multiple people write error handling
> parsers, it'd be fantastic if they gave the same results for the same
> input.  I'd like to add error handling to my haskell parser.
>

That would be awesome. It would be great to have a Haskell
implementation. My implementation has a lot more complexity than I would
like for a variety of reasons.

James
Received on Monday, 19 November 2012 08:43:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 19 November 2012 08:43:29 GMT