Re: What about this grammar?

Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> writes:
> I think the spec already covers this. It says:
>
> * Any serialization of a parse tree produced from the grammar must be
> well-formed XML.

That would be fine except that there’s nothing (that I see) in the
Invisible XML specification which requires me to produce a parse tree
from the input grammar (string) and serialize it before I use it to
build a grammar to parse the user’s input string.

I thought Bethan’s formulation nicely framed this issue:

  An iXML grammar must be capable of being serialized to XML when parsed
  using the iXML specification grammar.

That doesn’t say you have to parse and serialize it, but it says that it
must be possible. That closes what I see as a small hole in the current
specification.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

--
Norm Tovey-Walsh
Saxonica