Attached revised grammar 005 - proposed as "to become an errata". On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Steve Hanson <smh@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
A couple of further revisions.
Regards
Steve Hanson Architect, Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, *OGF DFDL Working Group* <http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/> IBM SWG, Hursley, UK* **smh@uk.ibm.com* <smh@uk.ibm.com> tel:+44-1962-815848
From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB Cc: Tim Kimber/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 25/07/2012 16:49 Subject: Re: Issue 140 spinoff - proposed revised grammar ------------------------------
Revised per call today. For your consideration.
...mikeb
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Steve Hanson <*smh@uk.ibm.com*<smh@uk.ibm.com>> wrote: I've made some updates which I think solves the complex empty issue, ties the grammar more closely to the action 140 rep definitions, and addresses Tim's content v value distinction.
Let me know what you think.
Regards
Steve Hanson Architect, Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, *OGF DFDL Working Group* <http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/> IBM SWG, Hursley, UK* **smh@uk.ibm.com* <smh@uk.ibm.com> tel:*+44-1962-815848* <%2B44-1962-815848>
From: Mike Beckerle <*mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com*<mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com>
To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Tim Kimber/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 10/07/2012 16:25 Subject: Re: Issue 140 spinoff - proposed revised grammar ------------------------------
Accept-all-changes on that document before you try to read it. Or use the attached.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Mike Beckerle <*mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com * <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com>> wrote: I took a crack at revising the grammar to something more accurate, more useful. It's bigger, but not 3 times as big.
I like it, but then I'm an implementor, not a user of this spec trying to devise a schema. Our audience is both however.
I am curious what you think.
One thing it cannot capture is the complexity of complex empty's, i.e., the fact that a complex empty requires one to sometimes descend recursively first, and then check for empty. From the grammar you would think you can always check for this first.
Fact is, you have to descend recursively in order to pop back up, and have the representation be found to match what I call EmptyElement. But the grammar can't show that. (well, maybe it could... I'll think about that further.)
...mike
-- Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair Tel: *781-330-0412* <781-330-0412>
-- Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair Tel: *781-330-0412* <781-330-0412> [attachment "grammar-revision.docx" deleted by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM]
Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
-- Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair Tel: 781-330-0412 [attachment "grammar-revision-003.doc" deleted by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM]
Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
-- Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair Tel: 781-330-0412