John Cowan <> writes:
> It's mostly a grammar, but not exclusively. In particular, subtyping by
> extension and restriction are data-model-like features that have nothing to
> do with whether a particular document conforms to a particular grammar, as
> it is always possible to compile them out of the schema.
I hesitate to disagree, but using OO-inspired techniques as a concise
way to express multiple grammar rules doesn't mean the result isn't
still a grammar -- it's just like the use of metarules in GPSG, a
notational device. The explicit grammar is expanded by the
interpretation/application of the metarules, producing an expanded
(implicit) grammar, which is in turn what is used to determine
language membership/schema validity.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, Markup Systems Ltd.
Cavers Garden Farm, Denholm; by Hawick; TD9 8LN
+44 (0) 7866 471 388
Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail:
URL: http://www.markup.co.uk/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
