Re: What is added by functional syntax?

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.