> So it would be within our rights to add these to the dc context set, and
> no one would look at us strangely?
>
> If this wouldn't cause people to get up in arms, I suggest we do it right
> now.
Yes, I can't imagine anyone will be bothered if we do this.
This does raise a complication. We've assumed for years (10 now) that DC is
15 elements forever. Now it seems (if I understand correctly) that it is
going to accomodate generic elements we've been talking about, which raises
the possibility that DC is the generic set we're discussing. It never could
have been, if it stayed at 15 elements, and so it has been proper for us to
speak of a generic CQL index set, for example for "audience" (before we knew
it was a DC element, which for me was today). However it's not clear at
all (to me) how aggressively DC plans to add generic elements.
So let's say we have a candidate generic element that's not yet in DC. Do
we
(1) lobby DC to add it; or
(2) put it in a temporary generic set and depricate it if and when it's
added to DC?
Please, anyone who advocates (1) share with us how to go about doing that.
--Ray
|