On 10/8/13 10:23 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >>> clear how useful such a class would be. In any case, because of the >>> ability to subclass FreeformClass, a protocol needing something more >>> particular is always able to create it." I don't really care about >>> this; it was just something that struck me on the way by. >> OK, I will try to find better wording, or just reuse what you've sent. > > It could be that, with your other proposal (in another thread) about > getting rid of subclassing and making it all use profiles, this point > will find a more natural expression.
How's this? Future specifications might define additional PRECIS string classes (e.g., a class that falls somewhere between the IdentifierClass and the FreeformClass). At this time, it is not clear how useful such a class would be. In any case, because application developers are able to define profiles of PRECIS string classes, a protocol needing a construct between the IdentiferClass and the FreeformClass could of course define a restricted profile of the FreeformClass if needed. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
