[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: DOCBOOK: Proposal #2 for BNF/EBNF markup
Probably not worth a whole lot more debate on such a small issue, but while I can see <rhs> and <lhs> as well-known abbreviations, <nt> has the disadvantages that: (a) it will be one of the less self-explanatory elements in the docbook vocabulary, and (b) it usually stands for something else. So I'll make one last mention of my preference for <nonterminal>. I know <nt> is much more concise, and the point about <nonterminal> clogging up the code is well-taken, but if the judgment call were in my hands, I would still prefer the self-describing <nonterminal> to the concise <nt>. Or a compromise, <nonterm> perhaps? DaveP
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC