[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] Comment #29: Suggested Language
At 10:07 AM 12/1/2003 -0500, emtc@nc.rr.com wrote: >As promised, here an example using the <resource> element. Basically, I >pulled the language in section 1.3.3, 3.2.3, the schema definition in 3.4, >and a modified version of the example from A.1 together with some additional >"usage" language. The resulting language, I think, should appear in section >3.2 - basically replace the table entry for <resource>. It looks to me like this boils down to a proposal is to eliminate the formal Data Dictionary and replace it with some more casual text. That would be a REALLY bad proposal. Explanatory, non-normative text has its place but it cannot be a substitute for careful, precise, and formal semantics. I would also strongly advise against trying to get full agreement on any such informal text formulation of a standard. Imprecise language can have a more folksy feel, but it is devilishly hard to use for computer systems specifications. And, ultimately, that is the primary audience that a technical standard serves. Eliot
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]