RE: DOCBOOK: Proposal #2 for BNF/EBNF markup

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@virgin.net>]

     Probably not worth a whole lot more debate on such a small issue, but 
     while I can see <rhs> and <lhs> as well-known abbreviations, <nt> has 
     the disadvantages that: (a) it will be one of the less 
     self-explanatory elements in the docbook vocabulary, and (b) it 
     usually stands for something else.  So I'll make one last mention of 
     my preference for <nonterminal>.  I know <nt> is much more concise, 
     and the point about <nonterminal> clogging up the code is well-taken, 
     but if the judgment call were in my hands, I would still prefer the 
     self-describing <nonterminal> to the concise <nt>.

Or a compromise, <nonterm> perhaps?

DaveP