----- Original Message -----
From: "David Rosenborg" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 5:25 PM
Subject: [relax-ng-comment] Re: Attribute grammars
James Clark wrote (on the relax-ng list):
> My overall feeling is that this new notation is more rigorous and less
> ad-hoc than my original notation. However, I think the main audience for
> this Annex is implementors, who are primarily programmers not computer
> scientists. We need to make sure the notation makes sense to a programmer
> who I would guess would be more likely to be familiar with parser
generators
> (JavaCC, yacc etc) than with attribute grammars. If we can find a good
way
> to fix my comment 6, then I think we can have a notation that both makes
> sense to our main audience and has a solid formal basis. Another worry I
> have is that it is going to take significant effort to fix all the
problems
> in this new notation and make sure all the bugs have been squashed.
A word from an implementor: Please stay with the current notation.
It is compact and comprehensible. I've looked at the suggested attribute
grammar notation, but it's no improvement from my perspective.
Cheers,
David
