- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:39:24 +0100
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Michael Kifer wrote: > > What is BLD++? Your proposal made no sense to me. You said that BLD should > be BLD without classification and BLD++ should include it. In the above, > however, you are saying that BLD should include everything that has already > been specified. So, what do you mean by BLD++ now? When I wrote "keep the BLD document complete with all that is already specified", I meant, "keep the document complete...", not BLD the dialect; sorry for the confusion. The idea is to keep everything in a single document, and then define Core and one or more flavour of "BLD" as subsets of what is specified in the document (e.g. a dialect that contains no named argument Uniterms nor classification and that we could call BLD; another that contains everything specified in the document and that we could call BLD++).. My understanding was that this would satisfying your sense of a profile, without the indirection problem that could complicate extensions (and it also seem that we have very different things in mind when we say extensions, but that is another subject). Christian
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 14:39:04 UTC