I doubt it is beyond those on this list (or the WG?) to auto-create an
index (despite W3C constraints) into all recs?
   AFAIK the recs are all available in XML?
I wonder what tool might be used.....
<sarcasm/>

Just a suggestion.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 at 17:22, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
cmsmcq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
>
> "Michael Kay mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On the other hand, we pretty well treat it as obvious that 2 + 2 is 4.
>
> True, at least in part.  I don't believe the specs attempt to define the
> laws of arithmetic or other parts of mathematics.
>
> But F&O section 4.2.1[1] does say explicitly:
>
>     4.2.1 op:numeric-add
>
>     Summary
>
>     Returns the arithmetic sum of its operands: ($arg1 + $arg2).
>
> and there is discussion of how zero and INF interact, as well as a
> pointer to a general discussion of overflow and related issues.
>
> I do agree that at some point one has to assume some common ground with
> the reader.  If we assume too little common ground, the spec is
> unnecessarily explicit, which irritates some readers.  If we assume too
> much, interoperability is likely to suffer.
>
> More precision may be combinable with brevity if formalisms like Z or
> Alloy (or like the formalism in the QT Formal Semantics spec) are used
> -- but that seems unlikely to help much in practice, seeing how
> frequently even simpler better established formalisms like BNF seem to
> overtax the patience of some WG participants.
>
>
> --
> C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> Black Mesa Technologies LLC
> http://blackmesatech.com
> 
>


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.