Re: [Core] new safeness condition

Axel Polleres wrote:
> Jos de Bruijn wrote:
>> And the accompanying test cases (completing action 688):
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core_Safeness
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core_Safeness_2
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core_NonSafeness
>>
>>
>>
>> Jos de Bruijn wrote:
>>> I completed ACTION-687: Write a proposed new definition of the safeness
>>> restriction
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Safeness
>>>
>>> Please criticize.
> 
> First: after a busy January, I am back to normal again and should have
> significantly more time to contribute to rif again.
> 
>>> I suspect it can be a little more concisely.  When I find some time I
>>> will go over it again.
> 
> Looks sound, but implies that finiteness is no longer is requested.
> Was that what was agreed? (Am just catching up with reading minutes)

I could not read the old definition.
I wrote a definition that makes sense to me. I have also heard people
arguing against the finiteness requirements, but nobody in favor.

Of course, my proposal is upon to criticism.

> 
>>> I also invite anyone who is interested to go over the functions and
>>> predicates in DTB and check whether the binding patterns defined are
>>> appropriate.
> 
> will do, but, the one you have no is on the safe side anyway,
> you mean, we should check wehether there are some where more liberal
> binding patterns could be allowed?

Yes.


Jos

> 
> 
> Axel
> 

-- 
                         debruijn@inf.unibz.it

Jos de Bruijn,        http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
Many would be cowards if they had courage
enough.
  - Thomas Fuller

Received on Monday, 26 January 2009 16:55:50 UTC