Primer multiple syntaxes (process + gui coordination)

While I agree with the essense of your message, I wanted to comment on
one thing which might be misleading...

> There's no WG decision on which syntaxes to include and probably  
> won't be as I consider it editorial.

I'd say this differently.  I'd say there hasn't been a WG decision on it
because the WG hasn't felt any need to make a decision on it.  The WG
can control every byte of every document if it wants to ("editorial"
doesn't mean the WG doesn't get to decide), but of course things work
best when the editor can come up with something that's good-enough for
everyone in the WG.  Hopefully editors can sense when there isn't
consensus and ask for a WG decision to guide them, but if they end up
diverging from some members of the WG, and don't notice, then those
members can point it out and iron the matter out. 

(Procedurally, they can object to publication until it's fixed.  In
practice, it's better for everyone to simply point out the divergence,
and if it's not a trivial matter, open an issue on it.  Whether one
*should* do all this depends on whether the divergence is such a big
problem that it's worth the delay that will be incurred.)

> Obviously, this many can only work if they don't overwhelm the UI (in  
> which cases choices will have to be made), but I'm pretty confident  
> that it won't, done right.

Where are we on the UI?  I did some hacking, then went on vacation and
Peter did some hacking.  I think we agreed on a UI where before the
first use, there would be an explanation and a global controller; then
at each use, there would be a collapsed local controller.  By having
controllers always above any text they control, we avoid the problem my
version had of jumping around.

     -- Sandro

Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2008 22:15:36 UTC