Re: [PRD] ACTION-531 Update PRD examples complete

PS is editorial, but it is also normative because the semantics and XML (of BLD
at least) is defined in terms of PS.

If we use widely different constracts in PSs of different dialects then it is
like using different notation in different sections of the same book.  People
have to re-learn things anew, and this problem will only exacerbate with
additional dialects. If we do not try to reuse then it will become an open
season for other dialects to introduce incompatibilities.


On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:32:02 -0400
Sandro Hawke <> wrote:

> > > 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 18:54:49 UTC