[SCL] Re: some explanation

[John F. Sowa]

Pat,

I listed the historical roots for the record,
but I agree that they have no relevance to how
we proceed.  And I have no desire to debate
whether there is a continuity or a break in
the tradition.

On the following points, however, we have no
disagreement:

  1. We will go with the new semantics that you
     and Chris have developed, which is clearly
     a break with the old KIF semantics.

  2. We will provide an XMLified notation in
     addition to the LISP-like and CG-like forms.

  3. I also agree that there are new requirements
     that have been introduced to accommodate new
     developments in the WWW and elsewhere.  They
     will be met by the version you have developed.

I don't see that any of these points are any reason
for not having the same technical foundations in
both the ISO and W3C standards.  If your primary
interest is in writing the W3C version, then just
give us HTML, and Harry will suck it into MS word
and add the ISO boilerplate.

I don't see any reason for not having identical
technical foundations for the ISO and W3C standards.

John