[DFDL-WG] DFDL's approach vs tradition parser-generators

[Tim Kimber]

Traditional parser-generators and DFDL both describe a formal language. 

Tools like Yacc/Bison/Antlr/JavaCC use BNF or EBNF to describe how to 
a) extract tokens from the data stream 
b) create an AST from the tokens
The language is explicit and the tree structure of the AST is implicit.

DFDL uses XML Schema to describe the tree structure of the AST, and uses 
XSD annotations to describe the physical representations of the logical 
elements. 
The tree structure is explicit but the language rules are implicit. 

regards,

Tim Kimber, DFDL Team,
Hursley, UK
Internet:  kimbert at uk.ibm.com
Tel. 01962-816742 
Internal tel. 37246742




From:   "Garriss Jr., James P." <jgarriss at mitre.org>
To:     "dfdl-wg at ogf.org" <dfdl-wg at ogf.org>, 
Date:   21/11/2013 18:21
Subject:        [DFDL-WG] DFDL's approach vs tradition parser-generators
Sent by:        dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org



Traditional parser-generators and DFDL generate parsers.  At a high level, 
how would you summarize the difference in approaches between these two?

TIA
 
 
“You’re only paranoid if they’re not out to get you.” (JD)
 --
  dfdl-wg mailing list
  dfdl-wg at ogf.org
  https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/attachments/20131122/f51891fc/attachment.html>