W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: rq23 grammar update

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:56:54 +0100
Message-ID: <431465A6.3050001@hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>



Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 10:34 +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> [...]
> 
>>>Hmm... that seems to say that we're using a notation that's very similar
>>>to the XML 1.1 grammar notation, but with a few tweaks. The sections
>>>on comments, keywords, whitespace and escapes are grammar
>>>notation tweaks.
>>
>>Yes - the XML 1.1 notation section is referenced.
> 
> 
> But it's reference by saying "The EBNF format is the same as that used
> in the XML 1.1 specification[XML11]" but as we're discussing, our
> notation is not quite the same. I suggest
> 
> 
>   The EBNF format here uses the following notational conventions
>   in addition to the XML 1.1 specification notation.
> 

I misunderstood then. I read it as saying tweaks to the XML 1.1 grammar notation 
  whch isn't  true - it's used, pure, in the grammar  (that should be pure EBNF 
as defined by the XML 1.1 specification notation).

Saying "notational conventions" is confusing because they aren't used in the 
EBNF itself [the grammar table]

How about simply:

     This section uses the EBNF format as used in the XML 1.1
     specification[XML11]. Please see the "Notation" section of that
     specification for specific information about the notation.

     In addition, the following sections apply.

	Andy
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 13:58:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:24 GMT