Re: What about this grammar?

"C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> writes:
[…]
> The sentiment I thought I was agreeing with was that I don't see much
> upside in allowing literal control characters in ixml grammars and that
> there is no need to go beyond the notations (hex literals) already
> provided for control characters.

+1.

>>> In real life, every person I know who has dealt seriously with
>>> character-set and character-encoding issues would write the ixml grammar
>>> in question with #13, not with a literal control-S , even if they did
>>
>> It’s #19, not #13. Use of #13 was a typo or a thinko on my part.

Oh, frack. Serves me right for second guessing myself.

>> I don’t think that goes far enough. I don’t think non-XML characters
>> should be allowed in iXML grammars at all.
>
> I could live with that (but I will be surprised if the CG as a whole
> can).

If we don’t forbid non-XML characters in ixml (text) documents, there
are some iXML grammars that can’t be represented in XML.

This guarantees an interoperability problem because some implementations
will always pass through XML on the way to building a parser and will
therefore never be able to accept grammars that contain non-XML
characters and some won’t.

I can conceive of no reason why we should allow un-encoded non-XML
characters in a grammar when forbidding them imposes no practical
constraints on what grammars authors can write with iXML.

If anyone thinks we *should* allow it, I’d love to hear why.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

--
Norm Tovey-Walsh
Saxonica