- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 08:47:11 -0400
- To: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Stan Devitt wrote:
> > Actually, I see the role of the abstract syntax as more conceptual,
> > identifying the key language structures and their relationship to each
> > other, rather than just providing an in-memory presentations for compilers.
> >
>
> I have nop objections with specifying a "more conceptual" synatx. But,
> p[lease, please, do not call it "abstract syntax" because the expression
> has been in use since decades for something else. (I am aware that in
> W3C cicle "abstract syntax" is unsed in an non-standard manner.)
cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_syntax
I would hope the three kinds of syntax you propose would be connected in
the obvious way, where parsing the human grammar gives you the abstract
syntax tree which also looks just like the XML tree. I also expect only
the XML syntax to be specified as a normative standard; that will be the
one that passes between computers.
-- Sandro
Received on Friday, 26 May 2006 12:47:31 UTC