W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2012

Re: [css3-syntax] Should I add (informative) railroad diagrams?

From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 00:14:31 +0200
Message-ID: <FB759CC7771D44FC885F27134299AF66@FREMYD2>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
It would certainly help to scan the spec for a detail.



-----Message d'origine----- 
From: Tab Atkins Jr. 
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2012 12:09 AM 
To: www-style list 
Subject: [css3-syntax] Should I add (informative) railroad diagrams? 

David said in an earlier message that he finds state machines to be
harder to read than grammars.  I don't disagree, but still prefer the
precision of a state machine.  As a compromise, would it be desirable
for me to add railroad diagrams to the spec as a non-normative
definition of all the tokens?  I find railroad diagrams easier to read
than regexes, while they contain very obviously the same amount of
information.

I've gone ahead and produced one such diagram already at
<http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-syntax/railroad-diagrams.svg>, for the
IDENT token.

Opinions?  I've already gotten them all drawn in my notebook, it'll
just take me a little while to produce them in SVG to the precision
that I like.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 22:15:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:00 GMT