Jacques Carette

Note that the above does not address certain things "head on": 1. incremental building 2. projecting 3. static types Here, I'm going to explore that. So if part of a...

I'd rather not go 'dependently typed' any earlier than necessary. I'm fine with having static checks that are like fake, low-power dependent types. Let's design UIDs without that.

I started [thinking about](https://twitter.com/jjcarett2/status/1489606736503787529) what is UID (link is to the philosophical approach I am taking now). That led me thinking about [the requirements for URI/URNs](https://twitter.com/jjcarett2/status/1489611048860753926). That bore fruit: [RFC...

chunk = chunk of knowledge = knowledge fragment. But that's too high-level to be useful. So we have 'different types of chunks', where we have some (meta-)knowledge of what they...

See comments left on the commit itself.

I prefer bullet (or to use the 'definition' environments in latex/html). There is no point to numbered lists since the definitions will not be referenced that way. This is of...

So the comment https://github.com/JacquesCarette/Drasil/issues/1432#issuecomment-497816423 by @smiths is very important. And represents a real flaw in current Drasil: right now there is too much of a mix between presentation and information...

When you say https://github.com/JacquesCarette/Drasil/issues/1432#issuecomment-497811210 that 'it would be easier if...', that's always a red flag to me. You're letting ease-of-implementation dictate the design. What we need to be emphasizing is...

That's still too display-oriented. I think the idea would be to maybe allow definitions to be nested, and that gets closer to the idea of what's going on (I think).

Can you figure out the difference (in the code) that leads to this difference? I don't think there is any need to pass any more data, acronyms are information available...