- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 07:36:09 -0700
- To: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, Norm Tovey-Walsh <norm@saxonica.com>, ixml <public-ixml@w3.org>
Dave, you keep switching between () and [] — that way lies confusion, since they mean different things. [] is a character inclusion with no members and matches nothing, () is a set of alternatives containing a single alternative matching the empty sequence. Michael > On 17,Dec2021, at 2:45 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 at 09:43, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> wrote: >> >>> Tks for the clarification Steven. >>> <myView> KISS principle, have one option - from the given list () >>> seems clearest</myView> >> >> I completely agree with the KISS principle, but the use of () doesn't come >> from a design for representing empty, but from generality and consistency. >> There are a number of ways you could explicitly mark empty alternatives, >> but they emerge from generality, not from a use case. >> >> I did once consider allowing empty strings >> >> empty: "". >> >> but it didn't add any functionality. > > I'll reiterate, [] says empty most clearly for me? > > regards > > > > -- > Dave Pawson > XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. > Docbook FAQ. >
Received on Friday, 17 December 2021 14:36:28 UTC