Re: subpipelines, Vnext and extension elements redux

/ ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say:
| As promised, I've tried to draft a proposed change to 2.1 and 4.7 wrt
| all this.  I've actually produced this as a way-cut-down alternate
| draft [1], as the formatting is sufficiently complex/important to need
| to be seen in full to be comprehensible.  Please try to have a look
| before tomorrow's call.

It doesn't appear that much different to me, though maybe I can no
longer see the forest for all the damn trees. I do find the repeated,
essentially identical, tableaux more confusing rather than less,
however.

| After all the discussion about non-standard compound steps, all I've
| done to implement my preferred option (4) is _remove_ any way they
| could sneak in.  If we feel more is necessary, a Note along the lines
| of "It follows from the above that there is no provision for
| backwards-compatible introduction of new compound step types." could
| be added.

Hmm. I'll look again tomorrow morning, I'm getting EBRAINFULL errors,
I think.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Puritanism--The haunting fear that
http://nwalsh.com/            | someone, somewhere may be happy.--H.L.
                              | Mencken