Eli Barzilay scripsit: > > I agree that it's nonsensical. I emphatically don't agree that the > > job of this standard is to make all nonsense illegal. > > How can you agree or not agree with something I didn't say?
One can agree or disagree with statements as well as persons. > > R6RS is a standard that tries. ECMAScript 5th edition and HTML5 > > try even harder to, prescribing the exact behavior of every > > implementation on every possible string of input characters. > > (This is going from nonsensical to ridiculous.) Whatever. Examine the standards for yourself. > > R5RS, and following it R7RS, prescribes certain things and leaves > > others up to the implementation. > > (And this is trivially true about any standard.) Examine HTML5 and ECMAScript 5 for yourself; the above description is trivially false about them. > No, I wasn't thinking about WG2, its charter, R6RS, or any kind of > incompatibilities. If you weren't interested in WG2, why speak of me as the chair? [snip] Your guess was mistaken. -- John Cowan [email protected] http://ccil.org/~cowan It's the old, old story. Droid meets droid. Droid becomes chameleon. Droid loses chameleon, chameleon becomes blob, droid gets blob back again. It's a classic tale. --Kryten, Red Dwarf _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
