Working on FPWD, more to do

Hi all,

I've been preparing the BP doc for its FPWD publication - a task that I 
have not yet completed as, I'm sorry to say, there is still quite a lot 
more to do and what I have done has taken a lot longer than I anticipated.

I've been focused on a couple of issues.

First, several BPs included RFC 2119 keywords in the possible 
implementation section and/or the why section. The BP template states 
that the Intended Outcome is normative - that's where MUST, SHOULD, 
SHOULD NOT etc. belong. They are repeated in the short description 
underneath the title but not elsewhere.

In other words, some writers have evidently been a little confused about 
the structure. In trying to create a more regular structure I have had 
to reorder the text a little but, as far as possible, have kept my own 
views out of it (I haven't always succeeded).

Taking out the RFC 2119 bits of the implementation sections has meant 
more than just removing emphasis, it's meant quite significant rewrites 
- more than I fee comfortable doing without WG review.

I keep in mind Antoine's point about writing BPs that say what humans 
MUST do - so I've made a few edits to say what publishers MUST do for 
the benefit of human users.

Some BPs needed more rewriting than others of course.

In doing this I have long missed the deadline for getting the document 
published today, and, as I say, I've made such changes that I feel I 
have gone beyond editorial changes and really feel we need another WG 
review before publishing.

So, at the risk of upsetting lots of people, I suggest:

- I will do my best to make more changes tomorrow (caveat, I have a 
meeting in London tomorrow so I'll mostly be doing this on train and may 
not finish).

- I encourage writers of BPs 1 - 21 to take a look at what I've changed 
and put back/ make any more changes you feel necessary.

- If you wrote any of BPs 22 - 33, please take a careful look at the 
structure of the earlier ones and see if you want to make any changes to 
your text.

- Editors - I've gone well beyond what I ought to do to your document 
here. I hope you don't mind.

- Chairs - sorry, I really think the WG needs to look again and vote 
again on Friday.

Again, I hope I haven't upset anyone here, but reading through the doc 
line by line I have felt significant changes were necessary.

Phil.

-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2015 20:52:09 UTC