- From: Kent M Pitman <kmp@harlequin.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 May 98 19:42:07 EDT
- To: xml-editor@w3.org
- Cc: kmp@harlequin.com
Regarding syntax rules [48]-[50], if I'm parsing for a cp and see the text:
(Foo)*
is the "(Foo)" a choice or a seq? Unless there is a clarification
somewhere, it seems to me to match both. And I'm uncomfortable
picking one or the other arbitrarily.
Perhaps you should define [a]:
choice ::= '(' S? cp ( S? '|' S? cp )+ S? ')'
seq ::= '(' S? cp ( S? ',' S? cp )* S? ')'
OR [b}:
choice ::= '(' S? cp ( S? '|' S? cp )* S? ')'
seq ::= '(' S? cp ( S? ',' S? cp )+ S? ')'
In fact, I believe the draft spec [a], presumably to avoid just this
ambiguity. Why was a change made to introduce an ambiguity?
- - - - -
By the way, I mentioned this during draft stages but it was not fixed:
I really think ('?' | '*' | '+') deserves a syntax rule
of its own for modularity since it occurs in at least two rules
[47] and [48] and since it is a proper conceptual entity of its own.
Received on Sunday, 3 May 1998 19:38:45 UTC