- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 08:22:07 +0200
- To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Sandro Hawke wrote: >> 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. > > +1. This is exactly what I mean. Francois
Received on Monday, 29 May 2006 06:22:17 UTC