W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > May 2006

RE: [RIF] Current list of requirements and design principles for RIF

From: Stan Devitt <stan.devitt@gwi-ag.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 15:41:09 +0200
Message-ID: <1512B5F2ED998C4BB3E2688B8EBEDB79C78399@mxex-tr-01.gwi-ag.com>
To: 'Sandro Hawke' <sandro@w3.org>, Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org

This captures well what I meant by mentioning abstract syntax and I would
like to see it explicitly spelled out and included in the work we do.  I
also expect such a relationship between the three so it might well end up
being descriptive. 

I also think we need to think about it from the beginning in order to end up
with a clean structure.

Stan


-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Sandro Hawke
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 2:48 PM
To: Francois Bry
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [RIF] Current list of requirements and design principles for
RIF 



> Stan Devitt wrote:
> > Actually, I see the role of the abstract syntax as more conceptual, 
> > identifying the key language structures and their relationship to 
> > each other, rather than just providing an in-memory presentations for
compilers.
> >   
> 
> I have nop objections with specifying a "more conceptual" synatx. But, 
> p[lease, please, do not call it "abstract syntax" because the 
> expression has been in use since decades for something else. (I am 
> aware that in W3C cicle "abstract syntax" is unsed in an non-standard 
> manner.)

cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_syntax

I would hope the three kinds of syntax you propose would be connected in the
obvious way, where parsing the human grammar gives you the abstract syntax
tree which also looks just like the XML tree.  I also expect only the XML
syntax to be specified as a normative standard; that will be the one that
passes between computers.

      -- Sandro
Received on Friday, 26 May 2006 13:41:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:29 GMT