Re: [Gzz] PEG: vocab again

[Benja Fallenstein]

Tuomas Lukka wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 03:51:49PM +0200, Benja Fallenstein wrote:
> > I am a person using devel stuff. Therefore, I want to know what this 
> > would inflict on me if it goes through.
>
> Ok. Basically, the PEG should happen before any developer starts using 
> that URI in production data. Happy?

Starting to make sense :-)

> > One possibility is to define that code using URIs from lava should 
> > *never be used* except for testing purposes-- anybody who ignores this 
> > must take of converting themselves. If you want to do that, you should 
> > explain which conventions prevent developers from using such code 
> > accidentally.
>
> How about simply: any official non-lava code must not use 
> experimental URIs? It's actually implicit already: non-lava mustn't
> depend on lava.
>
> So the lava distinction covers this, I think.

So we'd add to the definition of lava that it may use experimental URIs 
which may be annoying to convert to their later equivalents?

> > > > > I did state the earlier concepts that were renamed - this actually
> > > > > does define them.
> > > >
> > > > Where?
> > >
> > >         PP links (now dLinks) or xu links (now CLinks)
> > >
> > > This defines "dLink == PP link, CLink = xu link".
> >
> > Where do you say the concepts were renamed? The above implies that, 
> > but doesn't say it, nor give the reasons for it. That was the point.
>
> The "now" says that. But this is now moot, since I've started the other PEG.

I guess than we can agree to disagree on whether the above is acceptable 
or not and get on with this :-)

- Benja