Re: [SWC] comments/review SWC - part2

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:16:26 +0200
Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> wrote:

> I assume you were referring to my reply:
> 
> >> I was trying to stay in line with the terminology used in BLD.  BLD
> >> does not specify anything like an RIF- BLD -document or an RIF
> >> document. that seemed a good idea at the time, and I would prefer
> >> sticking with that unless anyone can come up with a convincing
> >> argument to diverge .
> 
> > Actually, it does, since the time the conformance clauses were added.
> > But a few days ago this is stated even more prominently. There is a numbered
> > definition for valid RIF-BLD documents and for conformant ones.
> > 
> > This is on the XML side. On the presentation syntax side there has been a
> > notion of a document formula for 2-3 months now.
> 
> 
> I am staying on the presentation syntax side.
> 
> My point was that the thing in the BLD presentation syntax is called 
> "document" and not "RIF-BLD-document" or "RIF document".

I see. Actually, it is called "document formula" or "RIF-BLD document formula".


	--michael  

Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 14:22:31 UTC