Re: Abstract v concrete syntax

James Clark wrote:

> I find the split between abstract and concrete syntax impedes
> understanding of the spec (it reminds me of 8879): I would find it much
> more helpful to have just a concrete syntax.  The 1991105 draft seemed
> to me taking a step in the right direction by including concrete syntax
> in the body of the spec using a similar notation to the XSLT spec; I was
> surprised to find that these have disappeared in the 19991217 draft.

I agree the current state is unsatisfactory.

We got a modest amount of negative feedback about the concrete syntax
paradigms in the previous two PWDs.  They've been removed _pro tem_ in 
anticipation of a stylesheet working directly off of the schema for
schemas, producing a concrete syntax summary more in keeping with
schemas, but specific suggestions for how this should look are
welcome.

As for the abstract syntax, it will probably go, to be replaced by definitions
of the abstract underlying types, which are much fewer and simpler,
e.g. I think all we need here are

   simple type defn
   facet
   complex type defn
   content model
   element decl
   attribute decl
   key, unique, keyref
   any

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/

Received on Tuesday, 21 December 1999 07:18:18 UTC