- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:27:28 -0400
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> >>>>>> Do we still need the presentation syntax as well? > >>>>> The presentation syntax is basically the same as the formal syntax. We just > >>>>> give a BNF for it. > >>>> The current document (posted conditions) defines a formal syntax which > >>>> uses the common mathematical notation you find in textbooks in the > >>>> definition of well formed formulas, but the uses the concrete syntax > >>>> (the one for which the BNF is given) in other places. These are two > >>>> different syntaxes. > >>> The two syntaxes are basically the same. > >> I would suggest only presenting one of them in the document. > > > > The presentation syntax is BNF of the formal syntax with a few more details > > that are to be used in the examples. Using only XML for examples is a bad > > practice; makes documents incomprehensible. > > I meant presenting either the formal syntax or the BNF syntax; I guess > we should go for the BNF syntax. > We should indeed not use only XML for the examples. There is a case for BNF, because people are so used to it. --michael
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 13:27:51 UTC