Re: Spec progress

/ Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com> was heard to say:
| At 03:32 PM 8/18/2006 +0100, Jeni Tennison wrote:
|
|           [lots of good comments elided...]     
|      A last general comment: I can understand why you've separated the
|      language constructs from the syntax for those language constructs, but
|      I think it would be easier to understand what's intended if they
|      weren't separated. In my view, the syntax specifications (and
|      examples) help to explain the abstract notions. If you were thinking
|      of reorganising anyway, take this as a nudge to do so.     
|
| Please consider this a nudge in favor of the status quo. I
| particularly appreciate the fact that the abstract notions are
| understandable and discussable without having to refer to syntax. I
| also appreciate reading the how-to (read: syntax) without being
| distracted by the abstract notions. Your mileage may vary.

I've tried it both ways. Twice. For the moment, I think the results
are less confusing with them separated. When the text has stabilized,
I'll whip off a "merged" version and we can see if a consensus
emerges.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
XML Standards Architect
Sun Microsystems, Inc.