On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Tjerk Meesters <tjerk.meest...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > On 25 Apr, 2012, at 5:42 AM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Tom Boutell <t...@punkave.com> wrote: > > > >> * The RFC starts off immediately talking about file extensions, but > >> the actual implementation proposed doesn't rely on file extensions or > >> suggest any enforcement of them. That disparity should be addressed > >> for clarity. > >> > > > > Did you read the whole RFC? Please refer to the "Naming Conventions" > > section. It addresses this explicitly. > > > > Are you saying that section wasn't sufficiently clear or did you just > miss > > it? > > > > I think what he means is that the abstract section should be, well, > abstract. Currently it appears more detailed than it should be by referring > to file extensions on the let go. I would phrase that section in a way that > doesn't rely on another section to explain the used terminology. > > Also, references such as .phpp are used throughout the document to > indicate a particular type of source file rather than an actual file > extension. As such I would recommend moving your terminology section to > right underneath abstract. This would improve the readability. > > Hmm I see your point. Ok I'll update that langauge next time I can find a spare moment. So aside from that, what are your thoughts? In addition to feedback on the wording itself, I'd also be interested in hearing your thoughts on the actual amended proposal itself. Does the new script type alleviate your main concerns about frameworks (keeping in mind that a compromise is a solution that neither party likes but both parties can live with)? What do you think about the require/include syntax suggestions? Should it be comma-delinated or use "as" instead? Etc. Thanks! --Kris
