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  cowan@ccil.org   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
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports