- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:04:36 +0200
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Michael Kifer wrote: > > [...] We should strive to define extensions that are orthogonal > as much as possible, and when they are not we should indicate that. > > A while ago I sent around a picture that contained the various extensions. Such a picture will probably be helpful in helping understand how various future extensions/dialects relate. But it should not be interpreted as an a priori roadmap for the development of RIF dialects/extensions, right? Not too strictly, at least: once we will have defined the core(s), the development of new dialects and/or extensions should be driven by users requirements much more than theory, in my opinion (that's not incompatible with the picture: only with the idea that such an a priori picture defines somehow the list of extensions/dialects that will be developed). > We should advise/encourage to make the presentation syntaxes compatible as > well, but it should not be a requirement, I agree. This is because the > usual presentation syntaxes do not have as many tricks in their hat as XML > does. The presentation syntax depends on the culture and habits of the user community for each dialect, and this can differ quite a lot from a dialect to another. I think that the advice should be to make the presentation syntax as familiar to the intended audience as possible (and the XML syntax as standard as possible). Christian
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 16:08:07 UTC