[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.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
>my productivity.
If it works for you, great. Just don't try to standardize that on me.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
