Re: What about this grammar?

It's an interesting dilemma: it's legal ixml, but if it were serialised as XML it would be illegal; but only because of XML rules not ixml rules per se.
We only forbid such characters on serialisation, so as long as it doesn't get serialised, all is well.

Steven

On Saturday 10 September 2022 15:10:40 (+02:00), Norm Tovey-Walsh wrote:

> Hello world,
>
> Assuming that ‘^S’ in what follows represents the single character #13,
> is an implementation required to, allowed to, or forbidden from
> accepting this grammar:
>
> S = -'^S', 'a'.
>
> parsing “^Sa” to produce <S>a</S>?
>
> (The problem, in case it’s not immediately obvious, is that the grammar
> cannot be represented in XML because a #13 isn’t allowed.)
>
> I don’t think there’s any question that
>
> S = -#13, 'a'.
>
> must be accepted and does what I suggested above.
>
> Be seeing you,
> norm
>
> --
> Norm Tovey-Walsh
> Saxonica
>

Received on Sunday, 11 September 2022 14:29:07 UTC