- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 08:43:58 -0700
- To: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-ixml@w3.org
Dave Pawson writes: > Can we resolve this please. Sometime before June > Suggestion, Each put forward their *single* preference, > I'll put them together, ask you for a weighted choice (QFD) > and hopefully the group will support that? > My choice ¿ and ? I think a little more churning may be helpful before laying out a set of alternatives and deciding. At the moment, I think I would most like to hear more from others about what they think pragmas are for and/or what they understand the essential nature of pragmas to be (assuming that pragmas have such a thing as an essential nature). Since a well-chosen surface syntax can help humans understand things better by suggesting the nature of the things represented, the discussion about the nature of pragmas may help us think of good ideas for their syntax. If we conclude, for example, that we want to think of pragmas as instructions or commands, we might choose ¡...! over ¿...?. Since you mention ¿...?, I will note that writing out a few examples the other day, I noticed that I found the ¿ ... ? syntax slightly distracting. In a metadata pragma with Dublin Core data, for example, those delimiters might look like this: ¿dc:title Grammar for CSS? ¿dc:author Steven Pemberton? ¿dc:date 2019? The trailing question mark eventually started to bother me a little; it seems to want to suggest that there is some uncertainty about the title, author, and date of the ixml grammar in which these pragmas are embedded. My current favorite is white braces, but I will have to find a way of typing the Unicode characters for them. ⦃dc:title Grammar for CSS⦄ ⦃dc:author Steven Pemberton⦄ ⦃dc:date 2019⦄ Or using the easier-keyboarding alternative suggested by Bethan: {[dc:title Grammar for CSS]} {[dc:author Steven Pemberton]} {[dc:date 2019]} For what it's worth, I am reminded of the fact that in specifying Pascal, Niklaus Wirth defined both {..} and (* ... *) as comment delimiters, since not all machines had curly braces in their character sets (card punches, for example). Actually, the Pascal Report also allows {...*) and (*...}, which may simplify the lexical scanner but which I find mildly horrifying. Bottom line: I don't think we're ready to vote yet. Michael -- C. M. Sperberg-McQueen Black Mesa Technologies LLC http://blackmesatech.com
Received on Saturday, 29 January 2022 15:44:16 UTC