Entity replacement

[James K. Tauber]

> The % notation does, in effect, specify which non-terminal symbols
> can be replaced by p.e. references.

Not really because you get cases of %(...)

Now admittedly, productions that include this in their RHS could be 
rewritten with an additional non-terminal symbol, so that production [43] 
could be written

choice::='(' S? choicelist S? ')'
choicelist::=cps ('|' cps)+

And this is exactly what I would like to see done because you could then 
simply list (apart from the productions themselves) those non-terminal 
symbols that can be replaced by PEs.

Do other developers feel this would make it easier to go from spec to 
implementation?

Now, relating my previous parsing/GE query to PEs:
Is it easy, given the current syntax spec, to build a correct parse tree of 
a DTD before PE replacement?
If not, should it be?

James K. Tauber / jtauber at jtauber.com
Perth, Western Australia



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa at ic.ac.uk)