- From: Tom Hillman <tom@expertml.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 17:23:12 +0100
- To: ixml <public-ixml@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2022 16:23:44 UTC
Michael said earlier that he had an idea about how to formulate a grammar with optional, non-empty prolog(ue)s, but if we allow a choice of (optional) prolog types (e.g. version and namespace declarations), I'd be interested to see what that looks like... Perhaps ixml: s, prolog?, rule+RS, s. prolog: prologChild+RS. -prologChild: version; nsdecl. but this would then allow • multiple version declarations • version declarations not at the start of the prolog Alternatively: ixml: s, prolog?, rule+RS, s. prolog: version, RS, nsdecl*RS; (version, RS)?, nsdecl+RS. would be OK-ish for now, but scales horribly should there be another candidate member for the prolog. I am intrigued by the idea of Michael showing us something wonderful I've not considered, but if not, maybe allowing an empty prolog isn't terrible? _________________ Tomos Hillman eXpertML Ltd +44 7793 242058
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2022 16:23:44 UTC