E2 to E1 SHTOLO test files

[Ed Barkmeyer]

Phil,

You and I are not quite communicating.  I also have respect for Pascal's 
position.  But at the end of your message, you said:

> My view is now that we should either have one language version identifier
> for a syntax, or none at all and assume that everything obeys edition 2.

The problem is, as Jochen and I have said, that we do not have a definition
of "syntax".  By "syntax", do you mean "all the Express schemas you need"?
I interpret any other definition to mean "every schema is (implicitly or
explicitly) labeled with a language version id", which is Peter's position.

To make my position clear, if your definition of "syntax" is "all the Express 
schemas you need", then I agree with your position as stated above.

(What is not clear to me is how a syntax with that definition can be 
"labelled", which is, I think, implicit in Pascal's position.  Where would
that language-version-id physically appear?  It can only appear at the 
beginning of the "syntax".  So if I cobble multiple Express files together 
to make a "syntax" for a parser run, at most one of them can have a 
language-version-id in it, and that one has to appear first.  By the time
I have arranged that, the language-version-id has become a parser 
invocation option.  I only know where to put it for a long-form schema -- 
the language-version-id labels the schema and the schema = the syntax.)

-Ed

-- 
Edward J. Barkmeyer                       Email: edbark at nist.gov
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8260          Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8260               FAX: +1 301-975-4482

"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."