| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
>> I'm afraid you are mixing up emails from this thread. I got |
| 3 |
>> complaints about how wrongly the PMS is written, e.g. academic paper |
| 4 |
>> markup vs plain text, natural language used to specify syntax while a |
| 5 |
>> grammar notation like EBNF would be better suited, when I asked |
| 6 |
>> people why so few were contributing about this document. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Mmm, and how many people claiming that have suggested specific |
| 9 |
> improvements or pointed out specific complaints? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
You got some right here. Feel free to address them. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> So how, specifically, is PMS "wrongly written", and why hasn't anyone |
| 14 |
> who thinks so bothered to provide details? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
- rewrite it as an rfc using a markup among xmlrfc, docbook, guidexml. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
- use EBNF when describing a syntax. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
- split it and version each functional part. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
- define EAPI as an aggregate of those versions in a separate part. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
lu |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Luca Barbato |
| 29 |
Gentoo Council Member |
| 30 |
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC |
| 31 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives