In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David
Janes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>The initial design-patterns ... and I know because I wrote them ...
>were distillations of existing practices. Include breaks this pattern
>only slightly, but was a reasonable isolation of a unit of work from
>hResume (I believe)
Thank you, David, but I'm not clear what your point is here, in relation
to the post you quote. Can you elaborate, please?
I asked (my post has not propagated back here):
>> How can a DP not be specified?
It's clear from:
LePUS (LanguagE for Patterns' Uniform Specification) is a formal
specification language based on a theory of object-oriented
design in mathematical logic. LePUS was used successfully to
specify design patterns, class libraries and object-oriented
frameworks.
<http://www.eden-study.org/lepus/>
that DPs do have specifications. It therefore follows, surely, that DPs
must first be capable of being both proposed specifications
("proposals") and draft specifications ("drafts").
Rather than debating such (dictionary-sense) semantics, wouldn't it be
better if someone with the relevant access, knowledge and editorial
ownership made it clear just what the situation is, for those DPs listed
on the main page ?
--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>
Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
