- From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 10:41:55 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@RubenVerborgh the problem you see with the recursive definition is one of naming. We agree that we need two things, one for specs based on other specs and one for specs that could be self-standing (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Jun/0106.html). I was rather in favour of naming "data profiles" the latter, which I believe matches your "I don't think the essence of a profile (there being defined as a data specification) is that it related to another specification". It seems that more persons are in favour of keeping "profile" for the "recursive" case. But well again it's a mere issue of naming, and I'd personally be ok changing that in the coming months if we discover something new. What's important to me is the split in two definitions, which captures the main divide we've got in our specs at the moment. -- GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-510009828 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2019 10:41:56 UTC