- From: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:01:01 -0400
- To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Le 22 août 2011 à 05:47, James Graham a écrit : > Small specs encourage people - including the spec editors - to perceive that features are more self-contained than they really are Note that in some circumstances it might have some benefits in forcing orthogonality. Our tools and cultural usage of tools are shaping the way we think both ways but… > What they [authors] care about is what actually ships. Not the point. I think Jonas was making. A smaller specification is easier to grasp, and even if authors care about what actually ships, they also like to read the specification be it directly or through a technical writer. Smaller specifications are easier to read for those readers. Robin is making a good point. The same way the document is one agent participating to the way you *design* a technology, it is also a way to design the way we work together. Le 25 août 2011 à 09:19, Robin Berjon a écrit : > • Is it easier for twenty editors to work on a single document or on twenty smaller documents? And by this I mean measurably — not personally. When we talk small/big documents, we are not asking the right questions. The way we want to work (editors, wgs, etc.), the type of usage we want for these documents (readers, articles, implementers), the way these documents will be handled by the society (patent policy, references), etc. All of that is what creates the choice. -- Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/ Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software
Received on Friday, 26 August 2011 00:01:32 UTC