Re: What's in this project for implementers?

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 28 November 2012 15:07, Ryan Freebern <rfreebern@unionstmedia.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >From which my take away is 'but it has problems'
> >> (what's the implied take away? Criticism of current implementations?)
> >
> >
> > I was just trying to convey that we understand there are problems, and
> the
> > community would be better served if those were fixed.
>
> Kid gloves Ryan? If they take implications, read more into it,
> then rejection is easier than acceptance. Sort of saying
> they got it wrong (whether you did actually say that or not).
>   The intent is right, merely suggesting we need extra caution
> in how we say it?
>

Ah, understood. I'll reword it to clarify that the problems I'm referring
to are because Gruber's syntax isn't sufficiently well-defined.

Thanks,
Ryan