Re: struggling with operation and message patterns writeup in spec

Hi Amy,

I wasn't making a serious proposal.. just indicating my current
gut feeling. My gut feel gotten a bit stronger since I sent that
note however.

> I'm rather cautious about this proposal.  Would we end up wanting to cut
> down on the number of patterns described, or on the detail included, if
> we were to combine the two parts?

That's a good question too - but I wouldn't want to (and am not 
trying to) cut down the number of patterns via this direction. I
was just saying that if we want to provide simplified syntax 
for the recognized patterns then its harder to split that kind of
fundamental stuff across two documents. 
> Doesn't having a separate part illustrate more clearly how third parties
> may define new patterns than inline definitions would?

Yes it certainly does. Again, a good question and I'm not certain
right now how best to optimize both concerns.


Received on Friday, 19 September 2003 14:25:59 UTC