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

Re: Final draft of Coremob 2012

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 13:56:41 -0500
Message-ID: <510EB2E9.5050407@nokia.com>
To: ext Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Suresh Chitturi <schitturi@rim.com>
CC: "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
On 2/1/13 4:16 PM, ext Ian Jacobs 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.

I agree with Suresh and Ian re s/Specification/Report/.

I think there is sufficient ignorance about CG documents being 
`specifications` rather than non-normative reports that I propose this 
bug be fixed now. After all, this document contains no normative text. 
It does use some UPPERCASE text but has no reference to RFC2119. 
Additionally, the Conformance section doesn't define any conformance 
classes because the spec itself isn't directly implementable.

Here's a pull request to fix this bug:


Received on Sunday, 3 February 2013 18:57:17 UTC

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