- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:28:59 -0500
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Yes, definitely useful. Very nice! --michael > Given the discussions at F2F5 I thought it might be useful to add a > glossary entry to capture the way we have been using the term "abstract > syntax". I've tried to keep it brief. > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Abstract_Syntax > > Is this sort of thing useful? > > Does this entry capture our intent accurately and clearly enough? > [I'm not trying to reopen any of the debates here, if the page is wrong > or inadequate I'll improve or withdraw it.] > > Are there other similar terminology confusions which have come up that > we should be documenting in the glossary? > > Dave > > >
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 18:30:27 UTC