• From: Steve Schafer <pandeng@t...>
• To: xml-dev@x...
• Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 09:59:03 -0500

On 19 May 2000 13:09:24 GMT, richard@c... (Richard Tobin)
wrote:

>The grammar in the spec describes the language correctly, and the
>productions in question can be used directly with compiler-generators
>like yacc.

That's simply not true. yacc generates parsers for LALR(1) grammars,
and the grammar in the XML spec is not LALR(1), unless, as I mentioned
earlier, you omit at least some of the regular expression-based
productions.

If you _do_ omit those productions, then you need to have a lexical
analyzer that can handle them, and there is no _single_ lexical
analyzer that can handle all of them, because the rules for
tokenization are strongly dependent on context.

-Steve Schafer


***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Ambiguity in XML spec
    • From: richard@c... (Richard Tobin)

• References:
  • Re: Ambiguity in XML spec
    • From: "Brown, Bryan" <bryanb@u...>
  • Re: Ambiguity in XML spec
    • From: richard@c... (Richard Tobin)

• Prev by Date: 24 hour format
• Next by Date: Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony]
• Previous by thread: Re: Ambiguity in XML spec
• Next by thread: Re: Ambiguity in XML spec
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread