On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:35:26AM -0400, Stephen Kent wrote: > >Near as I can tell there are no remaining substantive objections to > >Viktor's draft, only ones related to wordsmithing, writing style, and > >the name we'll give to this concept. All of these are a flavor of > >bikeshedding. We should stop arguing about such things, make just one > >more small effort to adjust Viktor's prose, and publish. > > I agree that we seem to have settled on a small set of design principles. Thanks. > I continue to disagree with your assertion that clear, concise wording > is a not an important aspect of this task. Whether the -03 was adequate, or inadequate, I agree that much of the proposed text in the abstract and introduction is an improvement, ... Thanks a lot for the text! [ Wish it were XML, and not extracted from "Word" and sent as HTML, but that's something I managed to get past with help from lynx and Perl... ] I'm working on integrating the improved bits, but keeping more of the original *content* in place (reworked). In deleting the "Pattern" section and compressing the "Principles" section, too much was lost in the proposed revision. So that's where my efforts will be spent, recreating that content with more clarity and less repetition. Still working on it, ... -- Viktor.