[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Proposal #2 for BNF/EBNF markup
At 05:28 PM 4/5/00 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote: >Toying with the stylesheets :-), I'm convinced that you're >right. How about 'constraintdef' instead of 'constraintnote' >(I'm thinking this is more like a definition (a la glossdef) >than a note). Fine with me. But I'm not sure why you think an admonition-style appearance is so imposing. That's exactly how it's done in the XML-related specs, and with good reason: They're sort of extra-special-normative text. >Except that they aren't IDREFs. So maybe 'def' is better, but > > - You suggested that constraint should be empty, but that it > might point to an external resource by xpointer. Um, I have > qualms about that. I think we should either make it an IDREF > or allow it to have content. I don't think we can reasonably > expect stylesheets to reach over the web and grab stuff, > especially since most of the stuff they could grab would be > in different DTDs or even HTML. I hadn't intended for constraints to point out to other documents; the constraintdef should be in the same document. It's fine with me if it's an IDREF. >I'm starting to think the semantic for 'nt' and 'constraint' >should be that the generate content if empty (in which case they >must have an IDREF (expressed as an xpointer)) or they can >contain content. [Can you say #CONREF? :-)] That seems okay. >| Sorry -- I was giving examples of individual productions, not groups of >| productions in a set. In the original XML spec, you'll notice that each of >| the productions for which I gave examples is part of a set, which is >| named. But I can agree with not requiring the title; e.g., to my >| knowledge, it's never used in any TOCs or anything. > >I don't feel strongly about this one. But I don't want to have >to add informalproductionset in the future :-), so we might as >well make it optional now, I guess. Sure. >I don't want the constraint text in the 'constraint' element, >just the text that should be "hot" in the link to the >constraint. Sorry, I'm lost. The production contains a constraint (kind of like a callout), which is a link to the constraint note/def. In XMLspec, the constraint element is empty and the title on the constraint note is generated in place and made clickable. So that seems like it meets your requirements. On the subject of <nt> vs. <nonterminal>, I agree that it's much more in the DocBook style to call it the latter... Eve Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center elm @ east.sun.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC