Re: POWDER + GRDDL = POWDER semantics?

Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:
> Just to elaborate a little more on POWDER semantics, 
 > my hope is that the GRDDL results would provide the authoritative
 > semantics of a POWDER document, i.e., that there would not be two 
separate
 > and **possibly conflicting** specifications of the semantics of a 
POWDER document
 > (one for POWDER Lite and another for POWDER Full).  Is that correct?


My emphasis.
At least from my point of view, I don't think conflict is or should be 
necessary. Formally they may say different things, but they should not 
conflict in the technical sense of contradict one another.

Jeremy