W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: We need a EBNF spec

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:43:22 -0600
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, spec-prod@w3.org, www-qa@w3.org
Message-Id: <1140619403.26363.636.camel@dirk.w3.org>

On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 07:05 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
[...]
> Personally I would discourage the use of BNF, however, as it makes it very 
> difficult to define error handling rules, and specifications often forget 
> to define how to go from the parsed tree to the semantics that the 
> specification defines, leaving it up to UA implementors to work out the 
> implied mapping.

Defining error handling rules is tricky, no doubt. But I wonder why
you say that BNF makes it more so. What do you prefer?


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2006 14:43:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:13 GMT