Mention inline datum CIP-32 within the Alonzo spec document

[nfrisby]

The Alonzo spec says

But the later "inline datum" CIP violates that https://cips.cardano.org/cip/CIP-32.

This Issue is a suggestion to add a footnote to the Alonzo spec's text mentioning CIP-32, just so that the reader of the document would be warned.

---

Unless the Ledger Team already decided that it's hopeless to keep each of their specs fully-up-to-date, and so not worth it to make ad-hoc attempts like this one?

[carlostome]

Inline datums are already documented in the Babbage era specification: https://github.com/intersectmbo/cardano-ledger/releases/latest/download/babbage-ledger.pdf (Section 3), which is when they were introduced. Maybe what is missing in the Babbage spec is a reference to the CIP.

Since specifications for later eras build (and change) previous ones and this is already documented, I think there is no need to change the Alonzo spec.

[lehins]

@carlostome I think what @nfrisby is trying to say is that the motivation for not doing inline datums in Alonzo was that it would "affect UTxO storage requirements". Which we went ahead and did in Babbage anyways.
So, I don't think it is a mistake or anything, but a clarification that not to store datums in UTxO in Alonzo was a choice, not a requirement is missing, IMHO