[sc34wg3] A few comments on the CTM draft (Was: New CTM draft for Leipzig)

[Andreas Sewe]

Gabriel Hopmans wrote:
 > Andreas Sewe wrote:
>>     This was my proposal's intention. But since a value list is
>>     interpreted, as per my suggestion, as a list of subjects, and an assertion block, as
>>     per section 4.6.1.1 <http://4.6.1.1>, applies to the entire subject
>>     list, the following will be interpreted contrary to author expectations:
>> 
>>        fortytwo {
>>          divisible-by: seven, eight {
>>            divisible-by: two, four;
>>          };
>>        }
> 
> 
> This last example is not allowed in CTM (at least the last inner 
> assertion). Does that resolve this issue ?

No. I know that inner assertions are not part of the current CTM syntax; 
they were just what I proposed as an replacement for the hierarchical 
notation in section 4.6.6, which to me seems like a lot of effort for 
the special case of taxonomies. (The above syntax would be more general 
but equally concise.)

   divisible by [
     fortytwo
     - seven
     - eight
     - - two
     - - four
   ]

Unfortunately the inner list syntax is ambiguous since both value lists 
and lists of subjects are comma-separated. (See my previous mail for a 
discussion of this.)

Nevertheless, I think that supporting inner assertions is a viable, more 
general alternative to the syntax proposed in section 4.6.6.

Does this clarify the issue?

Andreas Sewe