W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > February 2007

Re: HP review for LC (spec_lean normative extract)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:46:00 +0000
Message-ID: <45E54148.1040606@hpl.hp.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:47 GMT