On 2/27/2012 3:09 PM, Jeni Tennison wrote: > Therefore, I propose that we do both. Further, I'm happy to edit the > declarative-style specification unless there's someone else who wants to > do it. Are there any objections to that as a way forward? I've been thinking the same thing, but have been reluctant to propose it because I don't think I have the time to take the lead in editing. At the very least, translating the state-transition formulation into something else more declarative, or failing that perhaps functional, seems to me a good exercise in making sure we've understood the behavior of the former. I'm not sure how much time I can commit, but I'd be glad to try and help out at least informally. Thank you! NoahReceived on Monday, 27 February 2012 20:39:56 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 February 2012 20:39:56 GMT