- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 08:10:18 -0700
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
The document is currently over 930 pages when printed "letter" size. The first complaint I get from implementors wanting to review the specification is that it is unreviewable: too long, to complex, too difficult to review individual sections, too difficult to find the definition of terms, or where things are used. The difficulty of reviewing the content is likely the most serious threat to the quality of the document -- it defeats the open standards process to have long documents without sufficient reviewers. The longer the document -- and the more it churns during the standards development process -- the fewer the number of individuals there are who will have the time and energy to review the specification and be able to track its changes. My calling out this section was part of the review of the use of pseudo-code algorithmic specifications. It is well known that it is difficult to verify whether an algorithm produces expected results, and even more difficult to determine whether two algorithms produce equivalent results, which someone wishing to test conformance would have to do. Expressing normative requirements in terms of sets of constraints which the results of the implementation must satisfy is far preferable from the point of view of validation, testing, and document review. If we are concerned about whether the document can be reviewed, then an algorithmic normative section that is also lengthy is even more egregious. Being "precise" in this way may be counter-productive, if no one is really capable of evaluating the precision. The fact that OTHER specifications might need some formal definition of an algorithm which can be used in HTML -- but which has no use within HTML itself -- is not a good justification for retaining this section within the document. While there may be other applications which want a common definition of "outline", those other applications have their own requirements, ways of determining conformance, and constraints which this working group is not in a position to review. There is no way of determining conformance, for example. There are no requirements for "outline" against which this particular outline algorithm can be reviewed. In any case, if the "outline" specification has no application within HTML itself, then it can be put in a separate document and processed independently. Regards, Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 15:22:14 UTC