It is not clear to me if 2nd and 3rd ideas would break up many things (thus forcing to "re-learn" when having learned CLL 1.1), or only details. Somebody has clues on this?
How do 2.3. necessarily conflict with 1.?
Well, it is linked to what timoteios told about backward-compatibility. So yes, you're right. There may be "non breaking" changes. But I guess that 2. and 3. are not 100% free of breaking changes. Don't you think? Or maybe the situation is to be looked at from a different angle (regarding to the impact of changes)?
Furthermore, what is an "acceptable" breaking change is very subtle and subjective. Examples:
- Changing details about maths may affect more engineers and researchers than others.
- Beginners will be less impacted by breaking changes than long-standing speakers. I have personally read the whole CLL 1.1 and learned with it. However I'm still a beginner and the impact of changes is rather low for me (for now...).
- Changing details about attidudinals may affect more Asian-languages native speakers than European-languages ones (not sure of that, but sounds reasonable).
- (and surely much more...)
E.g.
xorxe's connectives are probably a Dialect, type 3.
solpahi's connectives are a Dialect, type 4.
Thanks for the info. I guess those "types" are closely related to the "level" of breaking changes, but are not the same.
What to you think about this?
Finally, maybe that "level" could be evaluated with a "grid" (ie. multiple "grades" about various impact topics), being unique for all submissions. For example:
- How much does it change the grammar? (ex: 0/5, 1/5...)
- How much does it change existing words?
- How much does it increase the vocabulary (word count)?
- How close new words/rules are to existing ones?
- (etc.)
This may help reviewing, by allowing only low global grades.
Just my 2 cents on this point! ;)
la .sykyndyr.