- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 09:45:26 +0200
- To: Philip & Le Khanh <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Le 21 mai 2007 à 23:00, Philip & Le Khanh a écrit :
> Daniel Glazman wrote:
>
> > And to be honest, this is not the problem here. A spec cannot
> > target two audiences that are so different, implementors and users
> > (here, users are document authors). And to be honest too, a spec
> > _should not_ target users. Tutorials and books are here to educate
> > users.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't agree.
I think both of you agree. It is just a question of perception.
> /Initially/, the user will need a book
> (or a tutorial, but good well-written books such as Dave Raggett's
> HTML 4 or Bert Bos & Hakon Wium Lie's CSS are far better, IMHO,
> being written by people deeply involved in the design process and
> decision making), but once the user has assimilated all he can from
> the book, he /needs/ the specification to which to refer whenever he
> needs to be certain of the exact letter of the law.
Those have been made mostly outside of W3C work by people involved in
W3C.
1. We need tutorials for people who want to know the language undies.
2. The specification is not necessary the best place for it. Too
technical for many people
3. Good technical writers are difficult to find
4. There are people on *this* list who are willing to build such
tutorials. It has been said in the past.
5. The work should start with people writing the tutorials reading
the specification and writing side by side the tutorial so that they
will be able to point out what is ambiguous.
6. The work can start *now*. Please do. If you think that public-
html@w3.org is not the good venue for this. I would encourage to do
it on public-evangelist@w3.org.
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2007 07:45:47 UTC