Re: [precis] WGLC: draft-ietf-precis-framework-09.txt

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 10/8/13 10:23 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

>>> clear how useful such a class would be.  In any case, because of the
>>> ability to subclass FreeformClass, a protocol needing something more
>>> particular is always able to create it."  I don't really care about
>>> this; it was just something that struck me on the way by.
>> OK, I will try to find better wording, or just reuse what you've sent.
> 
> It could be that, with your other proposal (in another thread) about
> getting rid of subclassing and making it all use profiles, this point
> will find a more natural expression.

How's this?

   Future specifications might define additional PRECIS string classes
   (e.g., a class that falls somewhere between the IdentifierClass and
   the FreeformClass).  At this time, it is not clear how useful such a
   class would be.  In any case, because application developers are able
   to define profiles of PRECIS string classes, a protocol needing a
   construct between the IdentiferClass and the FreeformClass could of
   course define a restricted profile of the FreeformClass if needed.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/