- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 11:46:04 -0700
- To: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, ixml <public-ixml@w3.org>
Dave, In the proposal Tomos and I brought forward, pragmas will appear within the ixml grammar, not as a secondary input file (or stream). Any implementor may choose to accept a secondary input file, of course, and in that case their data flow may look a lot like what you show (assuming that the big circle labeled “iXML grammar” pointing to “iXML text grammar” and “XML grammar” signals that an iXML grammar takes one of those two forms). But if a processor took all its non-standard instructions from a secondary file, there would not be much need to try to agree on a syntax for pragmas: other processors would just not read the secondary file in question, and they would then not need to understand its syntax. The reason for standardizing pragma syntax is to enable pragmas to coexist with standard grammar notation in the grammar input to a processor. Michael > On 11,Jan2022, at 10:47 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote: > > updated. Added (My understanding) of pragmas > > Assume you have graphviz available. > Shout if not. > > regards > > On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 at 16:58, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Attached, .svg, my system view. >> iXML grammar is my ideas, realised via xml or txt >> >> If incorrect, please amend? >> >> regards >> >> -- >> Dave Pawson >> XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. >> Docbook FAQ. > > > > -- > Dave Pawson > XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. > Docbook FAQ. > <terminology.dot><terminology.svg> ******************************************** C. M. Sperberg-McQueen Black Mesa Technologies LLC cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com http://www.blackmesatech.com ********************************************
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2022 18:46:25 UTC