- From: Graydon <graydonish@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 18:53:15 -0500
- To: Norm Tovey-Walsh <norm@saxonica.com>
- Cc: Bethan Tovey-Walsh <bytheway@linguacelta.com>, ixml <public-ixml@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 07:56:01PM +0000, Norm Tovey-Walsh scripsit:
> Now that we’re discussing pragmas again, I think it’s critical that we
> resolve the requirements *before* we begin discussing design. The
> requirements document that we’re currently discussing is *very*
> careful not to make any statements about the design.
Because it took me a bit to find it, let me confirm that the
requirements document is this one?
https://github.com/invisibleXML/ixml/blob/master/proposals/pragma_req.md
Sticking as well as I can to "what" and not "how", I think there are a
few things that might be absent from the requirements.
Can a pragma interact with another pragma? (For example, perhaps a more
narrowly scoped pragma could suppress the effects of a grammar-scoped
pragma within its own narrower scope; would that be allowed?)
"Parse tree" is not the same as "document"; does Rule 1 mean that a
pragma cannot provide dynamic information that would go in the prolog of
the XML document containing the serialized parse tree produced by the
grammar? (for example, a time stamp of some kind.)
If I'm reading this right, there is no way to use a pragma to pass in a
value; you could not use a pragma to parameterize an ixml grammar with,
for example, the character being used as the field separator in
notionally comma-separated values?
As written, I think multiple pragmas with the same name and different
optional data are permitted. This seems potentially problematic.
Thanks!
Graydon
--
Graydon Saunders | graydonish@fastmail.com
Þæs oferéode, ðisses swá mæg.
-- Deor ("That passed, so may this.")
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2025 23:53:22 UTC