Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> The % notation does, in effect, specify which non-terminal symbols
> can be replaced by p.e. references.
Not really because you get cases of %(...)
Now admittedly, productions that include this in their RHS could be
rewritten with an additional non-terminal symbol, so that production [43]
could be written
choice::='(' S? choicelist S? ')'
choicelist::=cps ('|' cps)+
And this is exactly what I would like to see done because you could then
simply list (apart from the productions themselves) those non-terminal
symbols that can be replaced by PEs.
Do other developers feel this would make it easier to go from spec to
implementation?
Now, relating my previous parsing/GE query to PEs:
Is it easy, given the current syntax spec, to build a correct parse tree of
a DTD before PE replacement?
If not, should it be?
James K. Tauber / jtauber@j...
Perth, Western Australia
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa@i...)
|
