- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:16:46 +0200
- To: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Gary Hallmark wrote: > > [...] Now I have both a > technical argument and a "crowd pleasing" argument. I still fail to see what, in your argument that the PS of PRD must be the same as that of BLD, is any more technical than my own argument that it must not, and I still fail to understand why only technical arguments should be accepted, anyway: "wide adoption" is a design objective we agreed on, after all, even if a non technical one! (Btw: the BLD PS has not been designed for use with PRD. Is that a technical argument?) Anyway, there is one point on which we will agree, I assume: to publish PRD FPWD asap. So, we should be able to find a compromise. I made a couple modifications in the introduction (section Overview): - I moved the introductory paragraph about the different kinds and representations of the syntax (that was at the very beginning of the Syntax section) into the introduction section (section 1.1): So, at least the notion that there is a presentation syntax and that it is essentially the same as BLD PS, and why, is introduced before any example of it. I also added an editor's note asking for feedback about that (and, if we agree on that, we may open an issue to keep track of the debate until it is resolved); - I added a one sentence introduction to what is a production rule, and a simple example, in plain english, informal pseudo-code, and the presentation syntax (that still to be completed: I wanted to check whether it worked with the group before going too far); - I removed the plain english introduction of the CMP rule, and replaced that with an informal pseudo-code description, and I commented the PS representation of it (although I am not sure this is a good idea: it sure does not make it look any simpler :-). I did not change anything except that, at this point (I mean, wrt to that PS issue): I wanted to check whether it worked for everybody before going any further. Btw, why did you (or was it Adrian?) remove Jim's DayOfWeek data type from the example and replaced it with xs:string? Cheers, Christian
Received on Monday, 23 June 2008 15:18:10 UTC