- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:54:11 -0400
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
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. --michael On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:32:02 -0400 Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> 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