- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 18:32:13 -0600
- To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, ixml <public-ixml@w3.org>
I like most of these changes.
But having
ixml: s, rule+.
rule: (mark, s)?, name, s, -[“:=“], s, -alts, -“.”, s.
instead of
ixml: s, rule+s.
rule: (mark, s)?, name, s, -[“:=“], s, -alts, -“.”.
has the unfortunate effect that a grammar like
{ Section 1: …}
a: … .
b: … .
{ Section 2: …}
z: … .
y: … .
produces XML in which the comment ‘ Section 2: … ‘ turns up not
between the last rule of section 1 and the first rule of section 2, but
within the last rule of section 1.
Also, I’m curious what the bug involving lf was.
Michael
> On 3,Nov2021, at 5:02 PM, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> wrote:
>
> In an idle moment, I refactored the grammar. Comments gladly received.
> Changes: * I hid all nonessential terminals. I know above all Tom was asking for this.
> * I moved the spaces from the rule for ixml into the rule for rule. Tidier and more consistent.
> * I renamed S to s.
> * I simplified 'namestart', since I realised class L covered all the cases.
>
> I think that's all.
>
> See attachment.
>
> Steven<ixml-new.ixml>
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2021 00:32:38 UTC