[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Production 21 (and others)



>On Thu, 30 Jan 1997 22:32:49 -0500 Dave Peterson said:
>>At 4:30 PM 1/30/97, lee@sq.com wrote:
>>
>>>Folks, please stop this.
>>>It won't help implementors.
>>>It won't help users.
>>> ...
>>Quite.  There is no rule engraved in stone that every aspect and
>>restriction of the language must be captured in the productions.  That
>>which can without terrible complication should (8879 probably erred the
>>other way) but there is no point in evolving more and more complicated
>>productions except as an academic exercise.  I too vote to kill this
>>track.
>
>OK, I'll drop it.  Before I do, I will just register my continued
>opinion that the syntax of XML should be wholly explicit, where
>mechanisms as simple as regular expressions suffice to describe it.

I totally agree. Credibility amongst implementors is at stake.
If comments are complex enough in regexp to warrant a BNF grammar 
instead then I say lets give'em a BNF.

Sean
digitome@iol.ie