Lists Home |
Date Index |
email@example.com (Uche Ogbuji) writes:
>> The subject line of this message, though, suggests pretty strongly
>> that some folks see semantics as a way out of a syntactic trap. I
>> believe those folks are fooling themselves at best.
>I've written a *lot* of parsers in my career. Tweaking semantics in
>aid of syntactic problems and vice versa is a class of technique I've
>used innumerable times. In fact, many of these techniques are well
>known and old hat. My experience, and that of many others in the
>field is shows practical results that belies any notion of "fooling".
>I'm sorry if your experience is different.
Are we talking about the same thing?
In the case of XML 1.0 syntax/semantics and parsers, what you say
reflects my own experience. On the other hand, much of this conversation
- starting from Roger's article - is about interpretation that seems way
above 'parsing' to me. Maybe there are two or more meanings for that
word, each appropriate in its own context.
>I guess I'll just go on fooling myself, since it seems so helpful to
If it works for you, great. Just don't try to standardize that on me.
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org