Re: [PRD] Issues to resolve before publication (NAU)

Gary Hallmark wrote:
>>
>> #4. Sections 2.1.1.3 (External) and 2.1.2.1 (Atom): Named Arguments
>> Uniterm (NAU). I really believe that we should not have them in PRD. But
>> I understand that others think we should. I propose that we decide by
>> simple majority vote, between the following two options (for FPWD only,
>> and we open an issue to keep the discussion open):
>>  1. No NAU (in FPWD), that is, leave the draft as it is (in the current
>> draft, I commented out the NAU in the PS, as this was easier to do that
>> to add them in the XML syntax etc);
>>  2. NAU in FPWD, with an editor's note asking for feedback (if this is
>> the majority decision, I will uncomment the NAU in the PS, and add them
>> in the XML syntax).
> 
> We should be consistent with BLD on this point.  Simply support them, 
> and no editor's note!
> I think having a case-by-case ad hoc voting strategy for a spec is not a 
> good idea.  I think we need to
> establish an architectural principle that PRD should not deviate from 
> BLD without very strong technical arguments.
> What would those arguments be in this case?

I think that we should have an uniform handling of the features that are 
under discussion because some want them and other do not; and, as I said 
in my reply to Adrian earlier today, I favor including the feature and 
add an editor's note, as it maximizes our chances to get feedback that 
could help us make a better decision.

One a more argumentative note: "it is in BLD so it must be in PRD" 
strikes me as a particularly non-technical argument (ideological, I 
would say, if I had to qualify it).

Whereas: "most mainstream production rule languages do not have them" 
sounds like a rather technical argument to me, when it comes to 
standardising the XML srialisation of production rule languages.

So, we do not even seem to agree on what constitutes a technical 
argument :-)

Christian