- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:32:02 -0400
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
- Cc: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> > Bis repetita supposedly placet, so let me write it again: having a
> > different PS for a different target audience is not a gratuitous
> > difference. Especially since BLD PS has been designed without being
> > reused for PRD in mind.
>
> Everyone had an opportunity to suggest changes and improvements to the
> BLD syntax. In particular, the group has adopted several of your
> suggestions. So, saying that the BLD PS "has been designed without
> being reused for PRD in mind" is inaccurate.
We're all clear that the PS is editorial in nature, right? Changing the
PS wont change any implementations, right? Someone can write a book in
which they re-specify and teach RIF using a wholy different PS, right?
I just to be sure we all agree about this....
So, yes, this is important in terms of (1) making the work manageable,
and (2) making the specs readable, but ... it's still not all that
important.
-- Sandro
Received on Monday, 23 June 2008 18:33:28 UTC