Re: Terminology proposals

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 12:27, Norm Tovey-Walsh <norm@saxonica.com> wrote:
>
> > *prefix recognition*
> > Recognition of an *ixml input string* from the beginning to any
> > subsequent point. If this subsequent point is not equal to the end of
> > the string, the prefix recognised is a *proper prefix*.
>
> > I don't understand that. beginning (of the string?) subsequent point
> > (within the string?).  Uses *proper prefix* without any definition?
>
> That *is* the definition of “proper prefix”. A prefix starts at the
> beginning of the input string and ends somewhere. If it ends before the
> whole string has been consumed, that’s a proper prefix.

Which was my confusion? Bethans doesn't clarify which beginning /
subsequent point.




>
> If it consumes the whole string it’s not a proper prefix because if
> you’re talking about matching a prefix, the case where the prefix is the
> whole string is inconvenient.

OK, I don't understand this use of prefix. Seems inappropriately
overloaded here?


>
> > Complete parse
> > I don't understand this. Minor nits on English. Does this processing
> > apply solely to the grammar and not the ixml input string?
>
> I don’t think I understand your question. The paragraph begins “A
> complete parse of an *ixml input string* is sequence…” so what makes it
> seem like it applies solely to the grammar.

My confusion. Question withdrawn.


>
> I think the point of this term is to distinguish the parse of a proper
> prefix of the input from a parse of the complete input.
>
> > *ixml input string* used, but not defined.
>
> It’s defined as one of the two things you feed into an ixml processor.

OK, not defined as a level 2 heading (md).

I'm uncomfortable with no definition when all other terms are defined?
It's a string, it's an input? How to define in terms of the Language of
the parser and wrt the grammar?


regards




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

Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2022 13:22:47 UTC