W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-coremob@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Final draft of Coremob 2012

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 21:23:24 +0000
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Suresh Chitturi <schitturi@rim.com>
CC: "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F9981AFB970564408FEB7DFCF62D440843BA5486@PRN-MBX01-4.TheFacebook.com>
On 2/1/13 1:16 PM, "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org> wrote:

>On 1 Feb 2013, at 3:03 PM, Suresh Chitturi wrote:
>>> From: Tobie Langel [mailto:tobie@fb.com]
>>> Subject: Re: Final draft of Coremob 2012
>>> On 1/31/13 8:15 AM, "Jo Rabin" <jo@linguafranca.org> wrote:
>>>> Thank you very much Tobie, please flip away and I'll push my button.
>>> There you go:
>>> http://coremob.github.com/coremob-2012/FR-coremob-20130131.html
>> Notice that there is a mismatch between the name of the report of the
>>title of the document.
>> Naming the title to "Specification" can be misleading, and a better
>>name would be "Final Community Group Report".
>> There were some discussions on this particular topic during the TPAC
>>and post TPAC, and I believe the conclusion from that is the same i.e.
>>not to use the term specification for CG deliverables.
>> Ian, can probably shed some light?:)
>Hi Suresh,
>I would recommend saying "Report" instead of "Specification" here.
>We've been discussing in the council this topic of naming; we're not done
>yet. But where I heard agreement is:
> * the class of thing is a Community Group Report (as we call it in the
> * the title can use the word "specification" if the document is indeed a
>specification (e.g., the "FooML Specification")

Agreed. This switched from being a spec to being a report midway and the
title was not modified accordingly.

Happy to hear a better way to address the problem than wait for a release
with errata if you think this is a critical issue.

Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 21:25:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:48 UTC