Subject: [xsl] Re: FXPath - A comment on EXSL From: Jeni Tennison <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 08:22:08 +0000 |
Hi David, >> With the keywords in IfExpr and Reduction, I wonder whether it >> would be a little easier for implementors and authors if they were >> given names that absolutely could not be element names? All that >> would involve is adding a '#' at the beginning of each of them. For >> example, if I had an element that was called 'reduce' then this >> would currently be mistaken for the keyword and presumably give an >> error. If you don't make this change, perhaps some words on >> tokenisation might be in order, as there are in the XPath Rec >> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath#exprlex). > > Yes, tokenisation should be mentioned. If I've not overlooked > something, the FXPath grammar can be parsed with a single token > lookahead. This is what's currently needed for XPath 1.0. After wracking my brains all night (see what I mean about life and XML?) I thought of one! :) if and then * else - 2 Could be: if (and) then (*) else (- 2) or: (if) and (then) * (else - 2) I think that having any of the operators that could be names - e.g. and, or, mod, div, * - as the 'test' for the if means that you can't use single-token lookahead, but the above shows that even if you have the entire expression sometimes you can't tell. Of course the other option would be to use symbols rather than keywords, e.g.: and ? * ! - 2 (which could even be and?*!-2 without ambiguity, I think). Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] [exsl] Re: Draft 0.1 - ca, Uche Ogbuji | Thread | [xsl] Re: FXPath - A comment on EXS, David Rosenborg |
Re: [xsl] [exsl] Draft 0.1 - call f, Uche Ogbuji | Date | Re: [xsl] position() oddity?, Peter Flynn |
Month |