Re: Terminology: types of grammar

That's a useful distinction.  If we are looking for more or less
standard terms to use, we will probably want them to be relative
neutral, or if they do have a certain implicit value judgement we will
want them both to be mildly positive or both mildly negative.  That is,

I think we should avoid taking a side in any debate over which is better
in general.

Off hand, of the terms Steven mentioned I think strict/permissive is
clearest.  Tight/loose might also work.

Michael

Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> writes:

> I was looking at Michael's conversion of rfc-3987, for IRIs, and
> trying it out on some test cases.

> https://github.com/invisibleXML/ixml/blob/master/samples/URI/rfc-3987.ixml

> A number of things struck me. in particular the great lengths they go
> to to specify an IPv6 address, and the lack of work put into
> specifying hostnames, and I thought it would be useful if we had
> terminology for the difference between (sub-)grammars that accept
> correct input, without checking, and ones that do their best to check
> as well, the difference between

> date: day, "/", month, "/", year.
> day: d, d?.
> month: d, d?.
> year: d, d, d, d.
> d: ["0"-"9"].
>
> and
> date: day, "/", month, "/", year.
> day: "0"?, nzd;
>         ["12"], d;
>         "3", ["01"].
> month: "0"?, nzd;
>             "1", ["012"].
> year: ["12"], d, d, d.
> d: ["0"-"9"].
> nzd: ["1"-"9"].
>
> Accepting, lax, lenient, indifferent, tolerant, liberal, permissive, flexible, lenient, ...
> Strict, compliant, stringent, rigorous, fastidious, restrictive, merciless, ...
>
> Steven


-- 
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Black Mesa Technologies LLC
http://blackmesatech.com

Received on Friday, 12 August 2022 15:40:21 UTC