On 9 Jun 2008, at 10:50, Luca Barbato wrote:

> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> I'm afraid you are mixing up emails from this thread. I got
>>> complaints about how wrongly the PMS is written, e.g. academic paper
>>> markup vs plain text, natural language used to specify syntax  
>>> while a
>>> grammar notation like EBNF would be better suited, when I asked
>>> people why so few were contributing about this document.
>> Mmm, and how many people claiming that have suggested specific
>> improvements or pointed out specific complaints?
>
> You got some right here. Feel free to address them.
>
>> So how, specifically, is PMS "wrongly written", and why hasn't anyone
>> who thinks so bothered to provide details?
>
> - rewrite it as an rfc using a markup among xmlrfc, docbook, guidexml.
>
> - use EBNF when describing a syntax.
>
> - split it and version each functional part.
>
> - define EAPI as an aggregate of those versions in a separate part.
>
> lu

And how specifically is this going to help? You are missing the  
'provide details' part.

- ferdy
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list