On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:58:40 +0200
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Anyone thinking that has a very limited understanding of how things
> > work.
> 
> Usually in this category you put everybody that disagrees with you,
> no matter the topic.

And what does that tell you about the average level of response?

> 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? All I've received are
some vague mutterings about how it should be less formal, some vague
mutterings about how it should be more formal, some incoherent rants
about how it's in some way unreadable and no actual specifics. All in
all, something that looks suspiciously like "I don't have any genuine
objections but like to moan"...

So how, specifically, is PMS "wrongly written", and why hasn't anyone
who thinks so bothered to provide details?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh