Re: Closure? (was Re: Request for two new media types submitted)


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.


Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 21:56:24 UTC