- From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 22:17:51 +0800
- To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:50:33AM -0400, Grosso, Paul wrote:
> I'd rather not spend time at our short f2f next week on this
> topic. Furthermore, I'd like to hear from those who will not
> be attending the f2f (Glenn, John, Jirka, Daniel).
IMHO the specification is really there to make sure implementors and
users understand the specification and end up with a common
understanding and consistent implementations. The current grammar
while locally ambiguous is still correct, and understood correctly.
So I don't feel any need for an update, if we had an annotation system
that would be an useful note to add to the spec, and for books authors
explaining the spec it would also be worth a small paragraph.
There are more serious formal troubles founds in the specifications
of the XML stack [1] :-)
Basically I would keep with the status quo on the spec itself,
Daniel
[1] For curious minds I suggest a read of
http://wam.inrialpes.fr/publications/2011/TOIT2011.pdf
skip directly to chapter 5 p18 if you dislike formal systems :-)
--
Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
daniel@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2011 14:18:42 UTC