- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 08:20:02 +0000
- To: W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
At 11:46 AM 18/10/96 -0700, Joe English wrote: > >In fact, >the ambiguity rule can make things *easier* for implementors.) Say what? The algorithms necessary to detect ambiguity are not typically within the repertoire of the hypothetical CS bachelor's-degree type that we'd like to be able to construct a validating parser. Furthermore, with the parser generators that I have to hand, in no case does an ambiguous content model complicate the task. Furthermore, since we've lost the tag miminization that opens the trap that I have been told the ambiguity exclusion exists to patch, I can't imagine why an XML parser author would *want* thus to constrain DTD authors, aside from a desire to comply with a non-useful clause in a standard that is there only to ensure compliance with another standard, which in any case is likely to be amended soon to remove this problem. If it's not obvious, I am deeply unhappy with the prospect of the restriction on so-called "ambiguous" grammars making it into XML. Cheers, Tim Bray tbray@textuality.com http://www.textuality.com/ +1-604-488-1167
Received on Saturday, 19 October 1996 11:23:42 UTC