- From: Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:19:06 +0000
- To: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Murray Maloney wrote: > Having to keep two documents synchronously correct is certainly > going to require some QA effort, but that will also yield a quality > product. I cannot fault the logic of that statement. Whether two (or more) normative documents describing the same aspect of the same specification is a desirable situation is moot, but if it were a choice between that and not having a normative document that specifies the markup language at all (other than as a part of a much larger document that attempts to cover all aspects of the specification), then I would come down in favour of redundancy rather than the alternative. Philip TAYLOR
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 17:19:44 UTC