From: Oren Ben-K. <or...@ri...> - 2002-06-18 07:49:33
|
Correction: > - *Unavoidable* restrictions for each are: > > top-value: [ *SPC, *IND, *COM, *SEQ ] ^^^^ '- ' there doesn't cause an ambiguity. So: > This is 4 different unique combinations: > > top-value: [ *SPC, *IND, *COM ] > top-key: [ *SPC, *IND, *COM, *SEQ, *KEY ] > [ top-seq, > inline-key ]: [ *SPC, *IND, *COM, *KEY ] > [ inline-sep, > inline-value ]: [ *SPC, *IND, *COM, *SEP ] And: > If option 0 is out of the question, I'd like to suggest the following > instead (call this option 1): > > top-value: [ *SPC, *IND, *COM ] > [ top-key, > top-seq, > inline-key ]: [ *SPC, *IND, *COM, *SEQ, *KEY ] > [ inline-sep, > inline-value ]: [ *SPC, *IND, *COM, *SEP ] Now, if we just said that all styles had *SEQ (something pretty reasonable, I think), we automatically get option 2, that is very similar to option 1. Only three styles: top-value: [ *SPC, *IND, *COM, *SEQ ] [ top-key, top-seq, inline-key ]: [ *SPC, *IND, *COM, *SEQ, *KEY ] [ inline-sep, inline-value ]: [ *SPC, *IND, *COM, *SEQ, *SEP ] This is more consistent than option 1. I like it better. In fact, I like it best of all the options so far. Thoughts? Have fun, Oren Ben-Kiki |