W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2012

Re: [css3-syntax] Should I add (informative) railroad diagrams?

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:34:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CADC=+jdku2a8BhzfbdSnpqWXOt5YCeZcioy-V4Se_Xc_AF1hGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
I like it!
On Sep 7, 2012 6:11 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> David said in an earlier message that he finds state machines to be
> harder to read than grammars.  I don't disagree, but still prefer the
> precision of a state machine.  As a compromise, would it be desirable
> for me to add railroad diagrams to the spec as a non-normative
> definition of all the tokens?  I find railroad diagrams easier to read
> than regexes, while they contain very obviously the same amount of
> information.
> I've gone ahead and produced one such diagram already at
> <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-syntax/railroad-diagrams.svg>, for the
> IDENT token.
> Opinions?  I've already gotten them all drawn in my notebook, it'll
> just take me a little while to produce them in SVG to the precision
> that I like.
> ~TJ
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 22:34:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:21 UTC