- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2024 12:02:05 +0000
- To: "Norm Tovey-Walsh" <norm@saxonica.com>, John Lumley <john@saxonica.com>
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, public-ixml@w3.org
> I’d be reluctant to define the prolog as exclusively a set of name-value > pairs. It’s the obvious place to put any structures that apply to an > entire grammar. This makes me worried. It means we're trying to design something that we don't know what we're designing for. I'm not a fan of the prolog as it is currently formulated, but if we don't know what it is meant to be, I don't see how we can design it at all. Steven
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2024 12:02:18 UTC