Re: header syntax.

I apologise for going off lits. Just trying to avoid wasting bw.

On 25 November 2012 14:34, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com> wrote:
>
> Le 25 nov. 2012 à 23:28, Dave Pawson a écrit :
>> Offlist.
>
> I appreciate Dave, the will to work, but I'm uncomfortable with offlist emails.
> Specifically when it is about the work we are doing.
>
>> Do I take it you are not in agreement with a core, then intermediate
>> profiles Karl?
>
> I already explained my position a few times.
> We have to first make a specification which is JG one filling the holes for implementers on how to implement a parser for it.

And do you really believe that is possible? To specify JG 'document'
entirely? Warts and all?
I don't. attached, a mess of syntax that complies with currentMD and is a mess.
If you could define a syntax and semantic for that, I would be very surprised.


>
> The rest of discussions on what could be the language is wishful thinking

I stand well clear of that. I have never mentioned evolving the language.

regards




-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk