Ian Hickson wrote: > On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Doug Schepers wrote: >> But I thought it was important that readers get an understanding >> of the scope of the technology, and not be bogged down in seeming >> contradictions. > > I honestly don't think this will really bog anyone down. You may be right. Let's hope so. >>> Besides your version sounding much more marketting-y and longer, I >>> don't see that it's especially better. >> Naturally, you already understand what XBL is for, but you aren't your >> audience. > > My concern with your proposed text was with its use of hype terms and its > length, it was not an issue with its content per se. I have no idea what you mean. What "hype terms"? >> I don't care about the length or the actual wording. I just want the >> abstract to be accurate and reasonably comprehensive. I don't think >> that the current version is. Maybe others do. > > If someone proposes an abstract that is more accurate and comprehensive > than the current text without hype, without being too long, and without > focusing on inconsequential details, I'd be glad to use the text. The > current abstract is the result of many years of comments being taken into > account and I therefore do not feel it should be changed lightly. Well, I'm too prolix, true. But I hoped that you would take constructive criticism more seriously and improve the readability of the spec. -- Regards- -Doug Research and Standards Engineer 6th Sense Analytics www.6thsenseanalytics.com mobile: 919.824.5482Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2007 23:28:50 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:21 GMT