“So, PRD provides a syntactic way to differentiate between the "loop" and "no-loop" cases, as exemplified by the modify_loop [1] and modify_no-loop [2] test cases: they represent the same rule, where the intended behaviour is to loop [1] or to refract [1]. “ If this is the case then I agree RIF covers both semantics! Thanks for the explanation. Cheers Paul Vincent +1 650 206 2493 / mobile +44 781 493 7229 From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christian De Sainte Marie Sent: 18 November 2009 19:23 To: Christian De Sainte Marie Cc: Changhai Ke; Gary Hallmark; mark.proctor@jboss.com; neal Wyse; RIF WG; public-rif-wg-request@w3.org Subject: Re: [PRD] Refraction Semantics may be WRONG! IBM 9 rue de Verdun 94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE Tel. +33 1 49 08 35 00 Fax +33 1 49 08 35 10 csma wrote on 18/11/2009 16:43:58: > > I am not sure if I understand where is the problem. > > [...] > > Or did I miss something? And, btw, I really hope that I did not miss anything, and that this is, really, only a misunderstanding, not a pb in the spec. I would really really hate to have to redo LC (and to re-open the can of worms :-)... Cheers, Christian Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above: Compagnie IBM France Siège Social : 17 avenue de l'Europe, 92275 Bois-Colombes Cedex RCS Nanterre 552 118 465 Forme Sociale : S.A.S. Capital Social : 609.751.783,30 € SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 03644
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 20:09:05 UTC