Re: Dropping pragmas

I was coming to a similar conclusion, leaving a ‘decoration syntax’ version of iXML (where for some other purposes you need to ‘mark’ places in/on the grammar) to a version 2.

John

Sent from my iPad

> On 2 Apr 2022, at 01:40, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Norm Tovey-Walsh writes:
> 
>> After Tuesday’s meeting and upon further reflection, I don’t think we’re
>> going to reach consensus on pragmas for Invisible XML v1. I don’t think
>> the remaining difficulties are technical, I think they’re philosophical
>> and ideological. I’m not saying we can’t work them out, but if we want
>> to have Invisible XML v1 finished for Prague, I’m suggesting that we
>> don’t have time to do it now.
> 
> It is with some regret that I conclude that Norm is right, and we should
> drop the pragmas proposal.  
> 
> Tuesday's call was useful, I think, in clarifying just how divergent the
> points of view in the group appear to be, and how broad the range of
> issues is on which our points of view differ.  It appears that we don't
> just disagree on the best way to deal with extensions and
> non-standardized information, and on the likely consequences of any
> particular design but also on whether dealing with those things is
> something that should be done at all.
> 
> I worry about the long-term consequences of dropping pragmas.  But the
> short-term consequences of continuing to discuss them appear to be even
> worse: that we won't have a spec to publish before the conferences this
> summer.  And that would make the long term irrelevant.
> 
> Since dropping pragmas seems likely to be a bitter pill for those who
> favor the current proposal, it would be good if we as a group can find
> something positive and satisfying to agree on soon.
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> -- 
> C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> Black Mesa Technologies LLC
> http://blackmesatech.com
>

Received on Saturday, 2 April 2022 06:44:29 UTC