<grammarRef> might be a better name than <withGrammar>.
--On 11 July 2001 09:28 +0700 James Clark <> wrote:
>
>> Conceptually, we include an external grammar once (without name
>> collisions) and then reference to more than one named patterns in
>> the external grammar. Ideally, the syntax should directly reflect
>> this semantics.
>
> I believe my <withGrammar> idea does.
>
>> Here is a strawman proposal. Rather than
>>
>> ...
>> <withGrammar href="u"> <ref name="p1"/> </withGrammar>
>> ...
>> <withGrammar href="u"> <ref name="p2"/> </withGrammar>
>> ...
>
> <withGrammar> is not restricted to contain a single ref, it can contain
> any pattern, eg
>
> <withGrammar href="u">
> ...
> <ref name="p1"/>
> ...
> <ref name="p2"/>
> ...
> </withGrammar>
>
>>
>> How about
>>
>> <div withGrammar="u">
>> ...
>> <externalRef name="p1"/>
>> ...
>> <externalRef name="p2"/>
>> ...
>> </div>
>>
>> ?
>
> I see two problems with this:
>
> 1) externalRef is currently used to reference an arbitrary pattern not
> just a grammar. Using a single element name for two significantly
> different things:
>
> a) referencing an arbitrary external pattern, without regard for its
> internal structure
>
> b) referencing a named pattern in external grammar
>
> seems not a good idea to me. I believe we will need two separate
> elements. I think it's going to be hard to find two names that won't be
> confused.
>
> 2) It seems like you are making withGrammar an inherited attribute (like
> datatypeLibrary). In the simple form, we would end up with the
> inheritance resolved:
>
> <externalRef name="x" withGrammar="u"/>
>
> With an inherited attribute it is not significant which ancestor the
> attribute is specified on. This is not reflecting the intended semantic
> of including the grammar once.
>
> I believe the <withGrammar> proposal better reflects the intended
> semantic. <withGrammar> signals the loading of an external grammar. <ref>
> references a named definition in the in-scope grammar whether brought
> into scope by <withGrammar> or by <grammar>. We don't need a new way of
> referencing named definitions, just a new way of bringing a grammar into
> scope.
>
> James
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to:
>
>
