http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4644 ------- Comment #9 from johnarwe@us.ibm.com 2008-01-18 15:52 ------- (In reply to comment #8) Looking at this in context, I see two things. 1. We lost any connection to an "associated message" during the edit. It is not obvious to me if this a good thing or not, intentional or not, ... 2. If I were reading that section, nothing would suggest to me that "assertion test" or (and especially) "succeed" were Schematron-specific terms. If there is a convenient way to refer to each definition, that would be optimal. I suspect that cross-document references are problematic however, in which case I would fall back to inserting a [Schematron] reference after each "special" word we are intentionally re-using from their spec. I considered adding just one [..] at the end of the sentence, but that seemed insufficient to communicate the "specialness" of both words to me. As someone who has not really lived much in the Schematron spec, I am probably a decent gauge of the average reader's understanding in this case. For some, having two [..] in one sentence will no doubt feel like being clubbed, but I'd rather be pedantic than unclear.Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 15:52:51 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 18 January 2008 15:52:52 GMT