Re: Can you clarify? Re: Do I have a second? Re: Motion to stop work on the standard
I look at another direction.
Currently set-based flavor is developed in details.
We tried to reserve other flavors on the basis of common intervals,
but it seems that many of them are quite different.
What will happen if we retarget the P1788
from general interval standard
to standard of set-based interval model ?
Text of P1788 will be shorter and simpler if we drop flavors from it.
More chances that it will be adopted by industry.
The general standard or a suite of standards for other models (modal, cset, Rump's)
might be developed later.
-Dima
----- Исходное сообщение -----
От: bill@xxxxxxxxxxx
Кому: wolff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxx
Копия: rump@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Отправленные: Понедельник, 2 Декабрь 2013 г 1:48:45 GMT +04:00 Абу-Даби, Маскат
Тема: Re: Can you clarify? Re: Do I have a second? Re: Motion to stop work on the standard
My question remains: Why should the standard not use the smallest
possible set of substantive requirements for a flavor to be P1788
standard conforming?
I have proposed what seem to me to be a reasonable set. Others might be
acceptable. The current set seem unnecessarily restrictive.
Cheers,
Bill
On 12/1/13 11:48 AM, Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg wrote:
> I also see som new and different interesting features , but I have the
> fear that it may be too new.
> I am in favor of set-based as the default flavor, but I have no
> objections against an additional Rump flavor, and somebody (Siegfried)
> should work that out for a future version
> Juergen
>
> Am 01.12.2013 18:21, schrieb G. William (Bill) Walster:
>> John,
>>
>> However, do you really want implementation to be a requirement for a
>> flavor to be standard conforming?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> On 12/1/13 8:57 AM, John Pryce wrote:
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> On 2013 Dec 1, at 16:10, G. William (Bill) Walster wrote:
>>>> Is Siegfried's proposed interval foundation yet another example of an
>>>> system that would not be a P1788 standard conforming flavor?
>>>>
>>>> I found is paper very innovative and interesting.
>>> So did I. Unfortunately it seemed to me on first reading that (any
>>> nontrivial realisation of) it was incompatible with P1788 since early
>>> in the project's history. If I'm wrong, and it can indeed be a flavor,
>>> that would be great.
>>>
>>> At the time he made the "Rump system" public, I felt it was too late
>>> to discard what we had done and start again. So I think Siegfried is a
>>> bit unfair to the group in saying "the only comment I heard from the
>>> stds-1788 mail group was that there is no reference implementation".
>>>
>>> I hope someone implements the system, and I look forward to try it out.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> John Pryce
>>>
>