Sun, 9 Mar 1997 20:56:09 +0100
>>>>> "DC" == David Carlisle <[log in to unmask]> writes:
DC> Could we perhaps move this discussion back to LaTeX?
I think the discussion is `at LaTeX', though its style is partly not
appropriate. Randolph is perfectly right that he asks for `common'
terms that describe the points Frank has brought up. (Just as Frank
already uses `shortref' from the SGML realm instead inventing his own
terms.) With these terms one can use the well known theory of formal
languages and its processing (aka compiler construction) as a
background to get more information.
Just look, how Anne Brueggemann-Klein's work on categorization and
complexity of SGML DTDs were able to show flaws in the basic concept.
Theory and communication by common term at work.
The question remains open: Do we really need context sensitive
grammars to describe usual markup demands like shortrefs?
PS: Randolph, yes, the base grammar of the TeX Macro Language (TML) is
context free. Of course, as with most macro language, it's an
extensible grammar. (There doesn't exist a published full description
PPS: Forward the LaTeX mailing list into a local newsgroup. Then one
can use KILL files, they save oneselves from reading postings by
people that got too much one ones nerves.
Joachim Schrod Email: [log in to unmask]
Net & Publication Consultance GmbH Tel.: +49-6074-861530
Roedermark, Germany Fax: +49-6074-861531