xml:id RE: [sc34wg3] Compact syntax requirement question

[Robert Barta]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 05:56:06PM +0200, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> | In further support of that reading, which I admit may be incorrect, I
> | note that 3.1 Notation and Syntax says:
> | 
> | > The syntax of TMQL is defined using the EBNF formalism defined in
> | > [XML 1.0].
> | 
> | So TMQL is being defined using EBNF, which I didn't take to mean a
> | standard syntax in the sense that most users understand the term.
> 
> Why not? Why would we write "the syntax" and mean something other than
> how the term is usually understood?

I would assume that from the background from which Patrick comes,
choosing a particular syntax seems to be some sort of limitation.

In Computer Science, though, agreeing on _one_ syntax for a language
is just an arbitrary choice among many equivalent. If there are
infinitely many equivalent choices, why not make one commitment?

Maybe it's only another 'doc-heads vs. data-heads' thing...

\rho