- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:56:54 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote:
> 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.
>
I misunderstood then. I read it as saying tweaks to the XML 1.1 grammar notation
whch isn't true - it's used, pure, in the grammar (that should be pure EBNF
as defined by the XML 1.1 specification notation).
Saying "notational conventions" is confusing because they aren't used in the
EBNF itself [the grammar table]
How about simply:
This section uses the EBNF format as used in the XML 1.1
specification[XML11]. Please see the "Notation" section of that
specification for specific information about the notation.
In addition, the following sections apply.
Andy
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 13:58:14 UTC