Re: (My) system view

On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 at 18:46, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
<cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> In the proposal Tomos and I brought forward, pragmas will appear
> within the ixml grammar, not as a secondary input file (or stream).

Clarifying (for me).

An XML grammar may contain pragmas nested within the grammar.

Is that correct?

I'll amend.


>
> 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).

that was my intent. Clearly not clear (what!!!)

OK, I would prefer to stick to one option

An implementation may do .... anything (what was that game you mentioned!)
I shall remove the separate stream.



>
> 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.

<<<<<<<<<<< Is it just me, or does this sound enticing>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Would it remove Stevens objections? Or at least some of them?

Issue: How to link pragma 35 with line 56 of the grammar?


> The reason for standardizing pragma syntax is to enable pragmas
> to coexist with standard grammar notation in the grammar input to
> a processor.

Rev C tomorrow morning.

regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.

Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2022 19:13:57 UTC