- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:29:53 -0500
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- 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++).. What would be the justification for this verbal acrobatics? Why not, for example, BLD-- and 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). The BLD-- and BLD would satisfy my sense of a profile, etc., much more. :-) --michael > Christian > >
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 20:30:07 UTC