- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:26:47 -0500
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 10:34 +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote: [...] > > > > Hmm... that seems to say that we're using a notation that's very similar > > to the XML 1.1 grammar notation, but with a few tweaks. The sections > > on comments, keywords, whitespace and escapes are grammar > > notation tweaks. > > Yes - the XML 1.1 notation section is referenced. But it's reference by saying "The EBNF format is the same as that used in the XML 1.1 specification[XML11]" but as we're discussing, our notation is not quite the same. I suggest The EBNF format here uses the following notational conventions in addition to the XML 1.1 specification notation. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 13:30:13 UTC