[sc34wg3] CTM: Semicolons

[Lars Heuer]

Hi Lars,

[...]
> Like the others I definitely agree with that principle. (A principal  
> is a person.)

:) Yes, sometimes I am surprised by the bullshit I write. :)

>> The user has to remember to add a semicolon after a template  
>> invocation within a topic-block but she must avoid that semicolon if  
>> the invokes a template outside of a topic-block. This could be  
>> strange to explain.

> If you explain it like that, yes. However, the rule I was proposing  
> was "semicolons between statements, and nowhere else". That, I think,
> doesn't require any more thinking.

Okay, that makes sense.

[Alternative syntax for the mergemap-directive]
> We could do that by:

>   (a) Requiring the notation. Not ideal, but certainly workable.

Yes, would work although we tried to avoid that. On the other hand I
don't know how often the mergemap-directive is used in the wild. I
guess "include" will be used more frequently.

>   (b) Putting the notation before the IRI.

This would not work. The notation is an IRI or QName. If the notation
IRI is behind the source IRI or in front of it does not change
anything.

>   (c) Adding some form of bracketing around IRI and notation, like so:
>         %mergemap ( foo.ctm )

Hmm... yes would work...

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
Semagia 
<http://www.semagia.com>