Re: [emergency] Comment #29: Suggested Language

At 10:07 AM 12/1/2003 -0500,  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