- From: Richard Newman <holygoat@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:36:07 -0700
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, Yosi Scharf <syosi@mit.edu>
> The JavaCC text output is converted to the HTML for the document by > a script although the tokens have to be manually described. The > process is converting javacc syntax to the EBNF syntax as described in > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml11-20040204/#sec-notation. > > The grammar in javacc is not quite LL(1) (there is a 2 state > lookahead at the Triples production - related to the optional dots > Richard commented on). The document grammar is also fed into > yacker (a W3C tool) which checks for conversion to bison/flex (LALR > (1)). I did try automated conversion of the grammar in the docs using yacker, and never got it to do anything but error. > There are trade-off between readability by humans and processable > by machines in the current grammar. Some people find the weighting > towards a machine-processable grammar makes the grammar unclear > (e.g. the use of recursive rules use rather than repetition). I personally didn't find the conceptual structure difficult; it's the ambiguity, and the reduction to BNF, that I would prefer to be resolved. -R
Received on Sunday, 21 August 2005 17:36:15 UTC