[uf-discuss] Unclear status of 'include-pattern'
andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Thu Oct 19 12:31:49 PDT 2006
<21e523c20610191155k6e901f81o3bc4ba24beb12296 at mail.gmail.com>, David
Janes <davidjanes at blogmatrix.com> writes
>The initial design-patterns ... and I know because I wrote them ...
>were distillations of existing practices. Include breaks this pattern
>only slightly, but was a reasonable isolation of a unit of work from
>hResume (I believe)
Thank you, David, but I'm not clear what your point is here, in relation
to the post you quote. Can you elaborate, please?
I asked (my post has not propagated back here):
>> How can a DP not be specified?
It's clear from:
LePUS (LanguagE for Patterns' Uniform Specification) is a formal
specification language based on a theory of object-oriented
design in mathematical logic. LePUS was used successfully to
specify design patterns, class libraries and object-oriented
that DPs do have specifications. It therefore follows, surely, that DPs
must first be capable of being both proposed specifications
("proposals") and draft specifications ("drafts").
Rather than debating such (dictionary-sense) semantics, wouldn't it be
better if someone with the relevant access, knowledge and editorial
ownership made it clear just what the situation is, for those DPs listed
on the main page ?
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>
Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
More information about the microformats-discuss