W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-er@w3.org > February 2012

RE: Two Specs and Test Suite

From: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:19:30 -0800
To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, "public-xml-er@w3.org" <public-xml-er@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EB42045A1F00224E93B82E949EC6675E16ADDAA478@EXCHG-BE.marklogic.com>
I agree with David.  One style of spec is better than two.
As they say about the man with 2 watches ... 

I don't mind a functional style spec at all as long as its indicated that this is just an abstract way of describing behaviour.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
dlee@marklogic.com
Phone: +1 650-287-2531
Cell:  +1 812-630-7622
www.marklogic.com

This e-mail and any accompanying attachments are confidential. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this e-mail communication by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately by returning this message to the sender and delete all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Carlisle [mailto:davidc@nag.co.uk]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 6:32 PM
> To: public-xml-er@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Two Specs and Test Suite
> 
> On 27/02/2012 20:09, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It sounds to me as though there are some people here who would very
> > much favour a procedural-style specification which spells out exactly
> > how to implement an XML-ER parser to create a DOM, and others who
> > would very much favour a declarative-style specification which
> > describes the outcome of error recovery in a more generic way.
> >
> 
> I'm very nervous about this.
> 
> Firstly as I commented before I can't imagine at present what a
> declarative spec would look like, although I'm quite willing to believe
> that is just lack of imagination on my part, but that makes it hard to
> say whether I think it would be good or bad thing to have.
> 
> But more worryingly, even if the more declarative style is viable,
> having two means that either they are easily seen to be equivalent, in
> which case it's not clear if you gain by having both. Or they are not
> easily seen to be equivalent, in which case there is a real possibility
> that they are different and perhaps incompatible, that surely would be a
> problem?
> 
> david
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 00:20:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 28 February 2012 00:20:06 GMT