Michael Sokolov wrote:
>> Do you think there is enough in your proposal to make, for example,
>> some of the major players, build a parser and other tools to support
>> it Michael?
>>
> Good question, Dave - I guess my thought that was smaller change would be *easier* to get implemented, but perhaps that is naive: ho-humness could doom it. One thing I like about this incremental approach though is that much of the benefit can be realized *only* with a new parser. I know a parser is complicated, but with some of the complexity removed, it would actually be much simpler to create a new one.
However, I don't see anything in your proposal that reduces complexity. More features and "looser" interpretation of the data makes parsers more complicated, not less.
--
Chris Burdess
