Re: Revised straw proposal for heuristic info

[dak@sq.com]

I'm afraid I worded that awkwardly.  I agree with your
point, 100%, and I wanted to emphasize the especially clear
ending of it:

| During the specification process we have to draw the line
| somewhere, or we'll end up specifying representations that are
| so ridiculous that they are used in only one representation,
| while failing to specify representations that are so attractive
| that several implementations assign conflicting interpretations
| to them.  I don't want this proposal to get bogged down in
| disputes over such conflicts, and I don't want the proposal to
| get bogged down in disputes over whether XYZ-specific
| representations should be specified.  If we specify one
| XYZ-specific feature, fairness will dictate that we specify
| ABC-specific and FOO-specific features also, and we'll end up
| with a 100-page specification for something that deserves no
| more than a couple of pages.
| 
| Let's stick to specifying only the simplest and most portable
| representations we can imagine, ok?

*Right on*.

In this spirit, I really like the procedure->formals, which seems to
capture all of the best parts of "Leave It Simple and Portable" (ahem).

Best,
Dak