- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 07:56:10 -0600
- To: Norm Tovey-Walsh <norm@saxonica.com>
- Cc: public-ixml@w3.org
Norm Tovey-Walsh <norm@saxonica.com> writes: > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] > Hello, > > There’s an interesting thread of discussion in PR #177, but it seems to > have tapered off. > > I’m interested in the discussion, but I’d like to focus for the moment > on whether or not the test case is correct and can be merged. The > grammar is: > > S = A, B, C | A, @B, C . > A = 'a' . > B = 'b' . > C = 'c' . > > The input is “abc”. > > The test asserts that two results are equally valid: > > ... > > Does anyone disagree that both of those results are acceptable[*]? > If not, I think we should accept the PR and merge it. I may be reacting too fast, but I believe that both of those results are conforming and acceptable. > [*] The spec leaves open the possibility that an implementation might > not report this parse as ambiguous and much of the commentary on the PR > was focused around whether or not it *is* ambiguous. And part of it (for which I apologize) was sidetracked into a discussion of some possibly questionable propositions that seemed to me to be entailed by things others had said, which were not strictly relevant to the issue. Michael -- C. M. Sperberg-McQueen Black Mesa Technologies LLC http://blackmesatech.com
Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 13:58:42 UTC