W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > November 2011

RE: [comment] Names and Titles of specifications

From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 00:53:41 +0000
To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6895C7B67488C14AA23F0E079F0D7E8F07A4C9@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> 
On Friday, November 11, 2011 7:33 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:
> Nick,
> 
> Le 11 nov. 2011 à 09:28, Nicholas Doty a écrit :
> > Karl, in your suggestions you had "specification" at the end of each title
> > (currently we have it on only the compliance document). Do you have a
> > reasoning for using "specification" in the titles? Other W3C spec titles seem
> > to be inconsistent.
> 
> Drop it everywhere.
> 
> ps: the compliance term is a strong issue but I will not argue for this 1st
> public Working Draft. Expect me to come back to it later on. tracking-
> compliance is definitely the wrong term for me.

As I said on the telcon, I agree with Karl that the "compliance" name is unfortunate.
I don't want to bikeshed spec names, I don't have strong feelings about the other
spec, and I don't want to block FPWD, but I will join Karl in requesting a change
be considered in future away from "compliance".

Cheers,

Adrian.
Received on Saturday, 12 November 2011 00:54:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 12 November 2011 00:54:44 GMT