- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 08:34:11 -0700
- To: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Norm Tovey-Walsh <norm@saxonica.com>, public-ixml@w3.org
Dave Pawson writes: > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 09:27, Norm Tovey-Walsh <norm@saxonica.com> wrote: >> >> > After the pragma discussions: >> > Proposal >> > *pragma amended ixml input grammar* >> > I.e. the ixml input grammar as amended by the application of one or >> > more pragmas within that grammar. >> >> That doesn’t seem obviously useful to me at the moment. > > Perhaps not, but it is another ... (I won't say file) text stream which we may > wish to discuss? Like Norm, I've been wrong before. But the idea of a 'pragma-amended ixml input grammar' seems to assume that all pragmas will work the way one or two imaginary examples in the discussion document of pragmas one might imagine someone specifying, so that 'the ixml grammar after modification' is a thing, and moreover a thing that we might want to discuss. I don't expect that all pragmas will work that way, and unless we do, as a group, specify one or more pragmas that do work that way, I don't see the circumstances in which we would need to discuss the result of applying such a pragma. Even the phrase "applying such a pragma" feels odd -- pragmas serve to provide a channel for communication with a processor in a vocabulary and with semantics that are not specified by this group. We do not know and should not assume that the meaning of every pragma can be usefully described as the application of some operation to the grammar or to the input. Some can. Some other examples in the discussion document can't. Michael -- C. M. Sperberg-McQueen Black Mesa Technologies LLC http://blackmesatech.com
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2022 15:34:33 UTC