- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:21:30 -0400
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:16:26 +0200 Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> wrote: > I assume you were referring to my reply: > > >> I was trying to stay in line with the terminology used in BLD. BLD > >> does not specify anything like an RIF- BLD -document or an RIF > >> document. that seemed a good idea at the time, and I would prefer > >> sticking with that unless anyone can come up with a convincing > >> argument to diverge . > > > Actually, it does, since the time the conformance clauses were added. > > But a few days ago this is stated even more prominently. There is a numbered > > definition for valid RIF-BLD documents and for conformant ones. > > > > This is on the XML side. On the presentation syntax side there has been a > > notion of a document formula for 2-3 months now. > > > I am staying on the presentation syntax side. > > My point was that the thing in the BLD presentation syntax is called > "document" and not "RIF-BLD-document" or "RIF document". I see. Actually, it is called "document formula" or "RIF-BLD document formula". --michael
Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 14:22:31 UTC