James Clark scripsit:
> - Just as adjacent patterns or name classes in a group require a connector
> (e.g. |), so annotation elements that are siblings of patterns or name
> classes require a connector (>)
I think that ">>" should be used instead of ">" (as in the previous
representation), because of its greater visibility.
> - There's one case where an arbitrary amount of lookahead is required: in
> order to determine whether a file contains a sequence of definitions or a
> pattern, you may have to lookahead past an annotation in square brackets,
> which can consist of arbitrarily many tokens (however, this is easily
> implementable in JavaCC without hackery)
This may be heresy, but it would be all right with me if the pattern
version wasn't represented in the non-XML syntax: any file containing
just a pattern can be prefixed with "start =" with no effect on
semantics.
> The non-XML syntax cannot represent the div element.
I continue to think that a bare curly-braces-block should be mapped
to div. Some work would be needed after a datatype name and after
include, which are (?) the only places that make a block optional.
--
John Cowan <> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
