- From: Stasinos Konstantopoulos <konstant@iit.demokritos.gr>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 23:55:39 +0200
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>
Eric, On Wed Mar 4 16:16:38 2009 Eric Prud'hommeaux said: >> Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: >> >>> I'm not arguing that that the implementation is the wrong approach, >>> but that the specification is actually describing a pretty ordinary >>> semantic extension. As you already noted (in a comment about the logical-programmatic boundary allignment or rather lack thereof) there are multiple ways to slice the same stack of modules, and it is hard to tell where the real (if any) slice boundaries are. We seem to have stalemated in a situation where we are staring at the same thing from so radically different perspectives that we cannot agree on what it is. Or either (or both) of us might just outright be wrong. > i don't know of any other detractors. it would certainly satisfy me. Now, I still think that you're wrong but I can see that this is the only way we're going to resolve this issue and allow POWDER to move on to its next stage. Especially in the light of your acknowledgement of the fact that my SemPP (as described in this thread) constitutes an implementation of a POWDER-S processor even after your proposed amendment, I will not raise any objections to the text being changed as you propose. Best, Stasinos
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 21:56:24 UTC