- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:46:00 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: public-grddl-wg@w3.org
The spec is very close to being one of the clearest I've read in this regard. Short, intelligible, unambiguous, well-distinguished normative text. And this clarity without sacrificing informative material. The comment is not meant as a criticism merely an encouragement to be best-in-class, an exemplar. I guess the security section slightly detracts from that, being a more finger-in-the-air type of specification; not something which translates well into mechanical rules. Jeremy Dan Connolly wrote: > On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 18:57 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > [...] >> 3) clarify normative text >> >> A silly pedantic point is that while the textual conventions for >> normative text are very clear and clean, that are not followed >> systematically. > > Quite. :-/ > > I don't know if you saw the link from the TOC... > "Extract: normative material only @@in progress" > -> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec_lean > > I had in mind to carefully review that this normative extract > made sense on its own. > > Then I had in mind to drop it altogether, since I'm not all > that invested in distinguishing between normative and informative > stuff in the spec. The words in the spec are in the spec. > > But this review comment gives me pause. Hmm. > >
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 08:46:17 UTC