W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > September 2009

Re: EBNF grammar of presentation syntax

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:49:16 +0100
Cc: "RIF \(E-mail\)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FF7C697B-E004-42A2-B9AC-5E36E1DA1909@deri.org>
To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>

On 30 Sep 2009, at 01:44, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> > > Profile names: We have profile names?  I don't remember them.   
> Where
> > > are
> > > they in the syntax?
> > >
> >
> > You are right, profiles are ANGLEBRACKIRIs, confused that with  
> Dialect
> > names, cf.
> >
> >   Dialect        ::= 'Dialect' '(' Name ')'
> Ah, I missed that.  As I've argued many times, included a dialect name
> in the syntax is big mistake.  I thought people understood that by  
> now,
> but I guess not.  I think it's a mistake for FLD to support dialect
> designers macking this mistake, but I guess it's my fault for not
> noticing this before Last Call.   Oh well.
> As for the rest of this thread...  I don't care about "the" PS.  It's
> just there as a shorthand for specifying the semantics.  I'll consider
> it a huge failure of the community if people ever actually use it
> (instead of better PS's that come along).

fair enough, a solid PS now can serve as a basis of defining that  
better PS in terms of it
(I wouldn't want to define a better PS in terms of the XML syntax at  
least.) I agree that the current PS suffered too many compromises  
along the way to be readable.


Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland,  
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 05:49:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:57 UTC