RE: rq23 grammar update

-------- Original Message --------
> From: Dan Connolly <mailto:connolly@w3.org>
> Date: 30 August 2005 15:27
> 
> On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 15:15 +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> > 
> > Dan Connolly wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 10:34 +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Dan Connolly wrote:
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > > > > This grammar has no local lookahead and has been checked for
> > > > > > LA requirements with JavaCC, it has been fed to yacker (it's
> > > > > > grammar "afs1"
> > > > > > http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/afs1/bnf?lang=perl 
> > > > > > except from (3) above the character class difference isn't
> > > > > > supported so it is a slightly weaker '<' ([^<>])* '>' . 
> > > > > > Yacker produces bison, yacc and Perl-based parsers with no
> > > > > > errors. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please let's share that info with the world. Let's publish
> > > > > those bison, yacc, and perl-based parsers as non-normative
> > > > > linked files. 
> > > > 
> > > > +1 to publishing all the material we have.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I meant: please let's publish some of those other grammar formats
as
> > > part of this WD. I gather your +1 is to a different idea.
> > 
> > OK - I suggest we create a directory in DAWG space and putting them
> > all, frozen, there.
> 
> Well, that's another different idea.
> 
> I'm asking that they become part of the SPARQL specification.
> Informative, but part of the spec, just like the linked copy
> of the formal definitions.
> 
> If you disagree, very well, "OK" or "+1" is misleading in that case.

I'm not disagreeing - publishing all the grammar we have is a good
thing.  Why is my suggestion - which was just supposed to be more detail
on yours - wrong?  Put grammars in a directory near the rec and link to
them.

I'd be happier if I could get a positive confirmation that they had all
run the test suite.  

	Andy

Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 14:35:39 UTC