Re: Glossary entry: Abstract syntax

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