- From: Rumen Kyusakov <rumen.kyusakov@ltu.se>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:02:50 +0100
- To: public-exi-comments@w3.org
Hi Youenn, If it is decided to stay with a single mechanism terminology then I cannot suggest anything better. I don't think it is an issue - it's just my opinion that the text of the specification is very hard to read that way. -- Best Regards, Rumen Kyusakov PhD student EISLAB, Luleå University of Technology On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 09:58 +0000, FABLET Youenn wrote: > Hi Rumen, > > > > Here is the working group response to your comment. > > Please let us know whether that addresses well your concerns. > > > > Regards, > > Youenn > > > > > > > Subject: Confusing description > > Section: 2.2 Grammar Learning Disabling Parameters > > Paragraph: "Grammar learning is disabled... > >... > > Grammar learning is disabled in the case of a production ..." > > Comments: > > There should really be a better name for "Grammar learning is > disabled in the case of a > > production ..." A suggestion: "Disabling the evolution of build-in > grammars"? > > > > The current phrasing is based on the assumption from the working group > that a single mechanism (grammar learning disabling) > > is defined and may happen at two different stage of the EXI > processing. > > > > We also think that section 2.1 and section 2.2 should be kept aligned > in terms of terminology. > > Hence the current phrasing that we plan to keep. > > Please let us know if any better suggestion comes to your mind. > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 13:03:15 UTC