Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "James K. Tauber" <email@example.com>
- To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 23:22:39 +0800
> 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 
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
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 / firstname.lastname@example.org
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 email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (firstname.lastname@example.org)