-----????-----
???: Wan, Ting (Ting)
????: Monday, March 05, 2001 10:47 AM
???: 'opes-coop(_at_)dnrc(_dot_)bell-labs(_dot_)com'
??: ??: [Opes-coop] RE: one more question about the parser
-----????-----
???: Markus Hofmann [mailto:hofmann(_at_)bell-labs(_dot_)com]
????: Monday, March 05, 2001 4:04 AM
???: opes-coop(_at_)dnrc(_dot_)bell-labs(_dot_)com
??: 'Ting Wan (E-mail)'
??: Re: [Opes-coop] RE: one more question about the parser
Lily, Ting,
Actually I would request the same thing with regard to
the number of
property name and pattern pairs in each rule line. One
simple number at the
beginning of the line avoids quite some trouble for the
rule engine code. In
the case of "unconditional" rule, a "0" would indicate that.
The same thing goes with the "action" line -- according to
the DTD, it could
be more than 1 action. I suppose all the actions would be
on the same line
with \x80 separating them. So a number at the beginning
would help.
I'd asy that should also be possible to include. But we shold
probably
start thinking about a better rule base format asap to avoid
unnecessary. Any ideas or suggestions? Or would the modified table
format do it for a while?
Thanks,
Markus
I think we should add attibute "execute point " to Action
element."execute point " specifies on which point the action
will be execute. Though there is a "process point " in Rule
element, "execute point " may be different from "process point".
What do you think?
Ting Wan