Re: (ACTION) On a new grammar for IRIs

Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> writes:

>> So I'll be happier with a proposal to replace the current ixml grammars
>> in the samples/URI directory, or add one or more additional ones, if the
>> README file can avoid condescending to the technical specifications of
>> URIs and IRIs.  But maybe that's a pipe dream.
>
> Oh I wasn't suggesting replacing anything, just adding a grammar ...

The opening words of the issue description for issue #139 are

    Although this is straight out of the RFC, it is not good enough for
    proper use.

Sounds to me like a proposal to revise or replace the ixml grammar in
question.

My suggestion that the prose documentation should explain why the new
grammar is markedly different from that of the RFC, why it recognizes a
different language (if I have understood your descriptions correctly),
and at least in broad terms what those differences are, applies whether
the existing translations of the RFCs' ABNF grammars into ixml are
replaced or retained.

But it's clear that my idea of appropriate documentation that the ideas
of others in the CG do not always agree.

-- 
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Black Mesa Technologies LLC
http://blackmesatech.com

Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2024 19:16:23 UTC