Re: [relax-ng] grammar error in compatibility spec

[Josh Lubell <lubell@cme.nist.gov>]

Thanks Mike for saying what I wanted to say, but more clearly.

I think of a spec as a document that should strongly favor use of the
present tense. A spec should discuss X using past tense only if it is
important that readers of the spec know that X came into being prior to
another part of the spec. If readers don't need to know this detail, there
is no reason to introduce past tense.

Josh


From: "Michael Fitzgerald" <mike@wyeast.net>
To: "James Clark" <jjc@jclark.com>; "Josh Lubell" <lubell@cme.nist.gov>;
"RNG List" <relax-ng@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 9:21 AM
Subject: RE: [relax-ng] grammar error in compatibility spec


> The use of the past tense /were/ is grammatically correct, but there is
> something going on with the sense of the sentence which I think Josh
called
> out correctly. I believe the key here lies in answering a question. If the
> goals mentioned STILL apply to the present, as well as the past, that is,
> the goals CONTINUE to stand as the basis for the restrictions, then the
> sense might be better stated as "The goals in framing these restrictions
are
> as follows..."
>
> Mike