On 13 Aug 2008, at 13:07, Ivan Herman wrote: > Jim, > > just to frame the discussion more precisely: afaik there are no > plans for publishing the M'ter syntax as a recommendation. There > might be a WG Note for the M'ter syntax, but only a note. So let us > not count that one in. > > I _personally_ view the XML syntax as some sort of an exchange syntax If you mean by "exchange syntax" to include the "sort of thing people might author with" then I agree. > and not a syntax for defining our spec (others may not agree with > me on that). It doesn't at the moment, but it could. It's possible for the XML syntax to replace the functional syntax though there'd be different pain places and it would be some work at a late stage in the came. > Ie, it does not have the same role and significance (again: for me) > than the functional syntax and the diagrams. Right. That's true. Same for the RDF syntax. It has a different role than the functional syntax and of the diagrams. Manchester Syntax is another "exchange" syntax. Cheers, Bijan.Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2008 16:50:54 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:51 UTC