Re: Extended attribute grammar too complex?

• From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
• Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:10:07 +1000
• To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
• CC: public-script-coord@w3.org
• Message-ID: <51EE1E3F.6000205@mcc.id.au>

Robin Berjon wrote:
> I've been looking at the extended attribute syntax and I wonder if it
> isn't just too complex.
>
> Rules 61-66 and 68 define a somewhat elaborate construction in which
> extended attributes can be built using nested parentheses, brackets, etc.
>
> In practice however that never seems to be used, and only rules 86-89
> (which are much simpler) ever seem to be used.
>
> Am I missing something or could the former just be dropped?

It's an extension point so that other specifications or implementations 
(privately) can define their own extended attributes with compatible 
syntax.  I think it's OK to keep.

Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 06:10:38 UTC