On 22 March 2013 12:57, Wes Garland <wes at page.ca> wrote:

> Is there a formalized way to translate between the human and
> machine-readable specifications?  If they are found to have different
> meanings (not hard to imagine), which specification would be
> considered authoritative?


The human readable form would be generated from the machine readable form.
The human form should be a descriptive representation of the actual rules
defined by the machine readable form. There should be no confusion only
human error in understanding the descriptive text. The machine readable
form should be authoritative since the idea is to implement whatever code
based on the rules from the machine readable specification.

To translate what I wrote in the initial mail into human form would be
something like:

Function Statement can follow Nothing and then expects Function Statement
Identifier to follow.
and
Function Expression cannot follow Nothing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130322/f10b368e/attachment.html>

The human readable form would be generated from the machine readable form.
The human form should be a descriptive representation of the actual rules
defined by the machine readable form. There should be no confusion only
human error in understanding the descriptive text. The machine readable
form should be authoritative since the idea is to implement whatever code
based on the rules from the machine readable specification.

To translate what I wrote in the initial mail into human form would be
something like:

Function Statement can follow Nothing and then expects Function Statement
Identifier to follow.
and
Function Expression cannot follow Nothing.