- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 10:06:09 +0000
- To: public-ixml@w3.org
Does anyone have any preference: ixml: s, rule+S, s. -s: (whitespace; comment)*. -S: (whitespace; comment)+. or ixml: s, rule+S, s. -S: (whitespace; comment)+. -s: S?. Steven On Thursday 17 March 2022 12:32:44 (+01:00), Steven Pemberton wrote: > Despite our recent resolution to accept this proposal, I will mention in passing that if we changed the top-level rule of ixml from > ixml: s, rule+s, s. > -s: (whitespace; comment)*. > to > ixml: s, rule+S, s. > -S: (whitespace; comment)+. > -s: (whitespace; comment)*. > > (that is demanding at least one whitespace or comment after a rule), then we could retain "." in names. > > This would invalidate no existing ixml grammar that I know of (except the ones designed to test the absence of spaces after rules). > > Steven > On Monday 28 February 2022 14:23:21 (+01:00), Norm Tovey-Walsh wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > On balance, I think we have to fix the ambiguity problem and the > > simplest, most direct solution is to remove full stop from the > > namefollower production. > > > > Yes, “.” is a valid XML name character, but we already accept that our > > names and XML names are not exactly the same. Restricting the space is > > if anything less problematic than the fact that we allow characters that > > can’t appear in XML names. But I think that’s a consequence of Unicode > > character classes, so I can live with that for the simplicity of the > > expression in namefollower. > > > > I was concerned that we were picking up “.” from one of those classes, > > but that doesn’t appear to be the case. > > > > Be seeing you, > > norm > > > > -- > > Norm Tovey-Walsh > > Saxonica > >
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2022 10:06:24 UTC