Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Jonathan Borden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: sam th <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 07:25:44 -0400
Sam, this is very helpful. Since we are writing the production-language as
we go along :-)
An issue for discussion is whether to use regexp expressions "as-is" or to
rewrite these in an XML equivalent. Since code exists for regexp matching,
my initial thoughts were to try to leave the regexps intact and attach them
as constraints via the attribute "regexp". In many ways, your proposal is
more logical from the pure XML perspective, on the other hand there are lots
of regexps in XML 1.0 and using this syntax will make the document
For example, you are proposing
I was considering:
<Name regexp="[^?>]" />
<foo repeat="?" /> would map to foo?
What do you think?
The Open Healthcare Group
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of sam
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 2:41 AM
> To: Jonathan Borden
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; John Cowan; Simon St.Laurent; Tim Bray
> Subject: Re: ANN: XSet an XML property set
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> > is a *very very* rough sketch of an XML property set describing
> the XML 1.O
> > production rules in RDF. This property set, when completed,
> will define the
> > XML grove in RDF.
> > Plan: 1) Complete the rest of the XML 1.0 productions
> > 2) Refine the production rule description language if necessary
> > 3) Incorporate XML namespace productions
> > 4) Define a language with which to subset XSet (current
> candidate XSLT)
> > Goals:
> > 1) To get it "right"
> > 2) to produce an subset (?XSLT "grove plan") which
> transforms XSet into the
> > XML Infoset WG Appendix D, RDF Schema (i.e. define XML Infoset
> as a proper
> > subset of XSet).
> > 3) To produce a subset defining SAX
> > 4) To produce subsets defining Common XML, SML
> > Help and comments are actively requested.
> Attached are productions in XML for the PI productions (16 and 17). I had
> to invent some new syntax, since foo? had not yet been used, nor [a -
> b]. Hope this is helpful.
> sam th