| 1 |
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:58:40 +0200 |
| 2 |
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Anyone thinking that has a very limited understanding of how things |
| 5 |
> > work. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Usually in this category you put everybody that disagrees with you, |
| 8 |
> no matter the topic. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
And what does that tell you about the average level of response? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> I'm afraid you are mixing up emails from this thread. I got |
| 13 |
> complaints about how wrongly the PMS is written, e.g. academic paper |
| 14 |
> markup vs plain text, natural language used to specify syntax while a |
| 15 |
> grammar notation like EBNF would be better suited, when I asked |
| 16 |
> people why so few were contributing about this document. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Mmm, and how many people claiming that have suggested specific |
| 19 |
improvements or pointed out specific complaints? All I've received are |
| 20 |
some vague mutterings about how it should be less formal, some vague |
| 21 |
mutterings about how it should be more formal, some incoherent rants |
| 22 |
about how it's in some way unreadable and no actual specifics. All in |
| 23 |
all, something that looks suspiciously like "I don't have any genuine |
| 24 |
objections but like to moan"... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
So how, specifically, is PMS "wrongly written", and why hasn't anyone |
| 27 |
who thinks so bothered to provide details? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives