Re: desiderata for the schema(s) for ixml grammars in XML

Yes, that’s the idea.  I attach the ones I currently use, for what 
they are worth, in both the narrow and broad (‘cooked’) forms.

Michael

> On 4,Dec2021, at 12:04 PM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> A relax NG schema, ready for eMacs syntax directed editing?
> 
> Hth 
> 
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 at 18:58, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> wrote:
> In a recent meeting I think I mentioned my goal of writing a transform
> that will read an ixml grammar and produce a schema describing the XML
> documents that can be produced by parsing input against that grammar.
> One use of such a schema, for me, is to allow syntax-directed editing
> of data described by an ixml grammar — notably including ixml itself.
> 
> If we want to encourage or require conforming processors to accept
> grammars in XML, having an authoritative schema describing the set of
> grammars they should or must accept might be helpful.
> 
> In practice, however, I find that when I work with ixml grammars in
> XML, I frequently want to annotate them; often I build a pipeline of
> XSLT transforms which begin by doing some straightforward annotations
> (e.g. making lists of all possible ancestors or descendants of a
> nonterminal, or recording whether a nonterminal generates the empty
> string) and then create a related grammar based in part on those
> annotations.  A schema that matches *only* documents that could be
> produced by parsing an ixml grammar is no good to me, because it
> doesn't handle my annotations.
> 
> It's easy enough to extend a standard schema for ixml with rules
> saying that namespaced non-ixml attributes are valid on any element,
> and that namespaced non-ixml elements can appear anywhere.  So it's
> not a requirement that a standard schema for ixml allow extension
> attributes and extension elements.  But I suspect that the desire for
> a schema allowing extension attributes and extension elements may not
> be limited to me.
> 
> For purposes of discussion, then, I make the following proposal
> regarding a schema for ixml grammars in XML form:
> 
> 1. We should have a standard schema pointed to from the spec.
> 
> 2.  In fact, we should have two:
> 
>     * one that describes as closely as possible the set of XML
>       documents that can be generated by parsing an ixml grammar
>       against the standard ixml.ixml, and
> 
>     * one that also allows extension attributes and extension
>       elements.
> 
> I'll call these the narrow schema and the broad schema.  (Some may
> prefer 'strict' and 'lax'.)
> 
> 3.  Exactly what counts as an extension attribute or extension element
> is tbd.
> 
> We might require declaration of extension namespaces in the style of
> XSLT.  For the moment, my proposal would be: any namespace-qualified
> attribute or element whose namespace is not the ixml namespace) can
> occur at any position as a child or attribute of a standard ixml
> element.  (Possible exception for comments?)  That's easy to achieve
> with wildcards.
> 
> What can occur inside an extension element is a matter for those who
> define it; in particular, ixml does not forbid extension elements from
> having children or attributes in the ixml namespace defined by the
> ixml spec.
> 
> Under the pragmas proposal Tom Hillman and I are working on, some
> non-ixml elements, attributes, and processing instructions in an XML
> grammar will count as pragmas, but not necessarily all.  (Pragmas will
> we hope have the property that they can be written out in ixml form
> without loss of information; that is not guaranteed true of other
> extension elements.)
> 
> 4.  The spec should say that:
> 
>     * Conforming processors MUST (or SHOULD -- open question, I guess)
>       accept grammars in XML that conform to the narrow schema.
> 
>     * Conforming processors SHOULD (or MUST?) accept grammars that
>       conform to the broad schema.
> 
> The standard interpretation of a broad-schema grammar is the same as
> the interpretation of the narrow-schema grammar that would result if
> we removed all extension elements (with all their contents) and all
> extension attributes.
> 
> I wonder what other people think.
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dave Pawson
> XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
> Docbook FAQ.