Jon Dart wrote: > > More problematic is the proposal to use prose annotation to replace or > to abstract away some constructs. Specifically, the proposal to > "remove control logic from the cDI .. the cDI programmers would have > to annotate the logic with human readable statements in order to > explain their intent." (3.2.3.6). IMO this is not something on which > we have consensus (at least not yet). In fact I think it is possibly > in conflict with some of the other requirements, such as D-CR-035 and > D-CR-038. Agreed. If it really boils down to being a description language that is not machine processable, then can't we just use UML? arkin > > --Jon >Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2003 15:37:22 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:25 GMT