- From: Karen Coyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 16:08:21 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@rob-metalinkage My point was that there is no "base specification" in Tom's definition. The relationship between specification and profile is an IS A relationship: a profile is a kind of specification, like a dog is a kind of mammal. There is no "specification" that a profile is a profile of, at least not in that definition. Whether that concept is included in, say, the profiles guidance document is not excluded, but the definition here is unrelated to that, and therefore there is nothing that must be "consistent". Specification is a class, not an instance, and a profile is a kind of specification, and is consistent with the definition of specification but not with any instance of specification. -- GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-511133722 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 13 July 2019 16:08:22 UTC