- From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:51:29 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org, Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
2009/4/29 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>: > A quick look at NF&R indicates that the example still need to be fixed > up. > > 1/ As agreed on earlier, the examples should use the same syntax > switching mechanism as the other documents. The Primer people are > currently working on making this work really well, so they should be > consulted. 1) As said in my email, I used the same switching mechanism as the SS&FS (but at the moment made it only on F1 to F4). Does you mean that the syntax mechanism in the SS&FS is not fine ? Why ? 2) We cannot use the same mechanism as the Primer (simple switch buttons), because the optional syntaxes are within the Examples which are themselves optional. This is the same case for SS&FS. It's why I used the same mechanism as SS&FS. > 2/ The examples are all syntactically incorrect as they use > "unqualified" names in the Functional Syntax, which are no longer > permitted. The easiest fix would be to use the empty prefix, which > just involves putting a colon at the beginning of each name in the > examples. I precisely asked you twice, and was waiting for the answer to know whether I have to put a colon. Thanks for the clarification, will add. > peter > -- Christine
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 18:52:09 UTC