- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:05:45 -0400
- To: "Hammond, Tony" <T.Hammond@nature.com>
- cc: uri@w3.org
> > What > > application for tags do you have in mind where parsing the > > authorityName is necessary? > > Simply that a TAG processor should be able to recognize a given URI to be a > TAG URI against the published syntax. Ah, I see what you mean -- one normally expects the BNF to be fairly self-sufficient, and we've put a weird exception in the text nearby. We should change 06: taggingEntity = authorityName "," date to 07: taggingEntity = authorityName "," date / futureExpansion and define futureExpansion fairly broadly (but subtract the existing stuff -- you can do that in the XML spec's BNF -- can you do it in ABNF?). Then in the text we can say you MUST NOT mint futureExpansion tags but MUST NOT reject them. The first MUST NOT will be relaxed by a future spec, in chunks, as needed. > I'm also not a little sceptical about the following injunction: > > > for generation only -- software SHOULD NOT parse tags. > > The TAG has been minted to a specification which defines the two component > parts of a taggingEntity quite clearly: authorityName and date. I don't > believe there should be any problem in an application retrieving these > pieces of information. No, you're right. If it matches that branch of the grammar, agents are welcome to parse it, although I have no idea what good it would do them. Forgive me for overstating the case in my earlier message. -- sandro
Received on Friday, 22 October 2004 19:03:32 UTC