Re: Specified Requirements for Modularisation

Broadly, I think our requirements are aligned.

A few comments…

> * There should be no change required to ixml proper:
>   just use the existing syntax and semantics.

Both of the proposals involve new syntax (and, arguably, new semantics for the new syntax) so I’m not sure this is clear as stated. I think the intent is that after modularity has been “resolved” as it were, the same syntax, with the same semantics, remain.

> * It should be possible to include any rule from a grammar. Ultimately, reuse should be in the hands of the author of the including grammar.

I think we both agree that a grammar author should be able to say what the public interface is. I think an author engaged in reuse should have the freedom to bypass that interface.

There’s no object code form here, there’s nothing preventing someone from just cutting and pasting. But we want to offer a mechanism that makes that unnecessary where possible. Sometimes that may mean reaching in and poking at “private” parts of the grammar being included. Your gun, your bullet, your foot.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

--
Norm Tovey-Walsh
CEO, Saxonica

Received on Monday, 11 May 2026 12:46:53 UTC