On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 03:22:04PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Ximin Luo wrote:
> > OK, understood. I will take a look at creating a patch for > > copyright-format.xml > > like you did. However, I think I would prefer using an explicit grammar > > instead > > (e.g. the sort that programming language specifications use), because that > > leads to clearer thinking and less ambiguity. > > Which would you prefer? > That's up to Steve, since he's the editor of the document. > I am personally of two minds --- on one hand, I would like to see the > copyright-format released quickly, which means making only minimal > changes to the document. On the other hand, an explicit grammar would > indeed make the details of the spec easier to understand. > I guess if I were in your shoes, I'd keep a grammar in mind and make > sure the text specifies it unambiguously but use plain text so as to > make the changes not too invasive. It would be nice to have a formal grammar down the line, but that's also too large of a change for 1.0. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
