- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 12:25:10 +0200
- To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Stan Devitt wrote: > Is there any particular reason we are not explicitly mentioning an abstract > syntax as either a requirement or a principle in addition to a human > readable and exchange syntax? I don't quite see it being implied by the > other two, and it usually makes the design and implementation process a > whole lot easier. > > I bel;eive, the following syntaxes are needed: 1. a human readable syntax 2. an XML linearized syntax 3. a syntax for the representation in main memory (for language compilers and interpretaers). Note that, usually in Compilers and computert Science, the last syntax is called "abstract", while the first is called "concrete". Francois
Received on Friday, 26 May 2006 10:25:22 UTC