Re: [Fwd: XML Schema Part 2 should provide BNF for all primitive types.]

> grammar for the lexical forms, but formal mappings to the value space.  In
> other words, show the polynomial that gives you the integer value, for
> example.

I don't see a *reason* why we have to go this far.

There are 19 primitive types. Of them, formal descriptions for some can be
found in related recommendations and standards, example [1]. I am sure we
can re-use these descriptions. For some, say anyURI, we do not have to
provide a formal description. And, it is relatively easy to write a BNF or
RegEx for some datatypes, say 'boolean'.

The big question is how long would it take to produce this? May be we can
give up Part 2 re-org.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/#ns-qualnames

Regards, Asir
----- Original Message -----
From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
To: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashokma@microsoft.com>
Cc: <jjc@jclark.com>; <w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org>;
<www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 1:44 PM
Subject: RE: [Fwd: XML Schema Part 2 should provide BNF for all primitive
types.]


> Does it make any sense to do regex's or BNF as non-normative for 1.0,
> normative for 1.1?  This might, editors' time permitting, let us get
> something out, and still have the opportunigy to fix edge cases before we
> make it normative.  I've thought for a long time we need not only a formal
> grammar for the lexical forms, but formal mappings to the value space.  In
> other words, show the polynomial that gives you the integer value, for
> example.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2001 14:56:54 UTC