W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > September 2006

proposal to integrate E.1

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:13:22 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20060914080058.036fd010@localhost>
To: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

At 07:52 AM 9/14/2006 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>[...]
>3.) WAI appendix suggestions
>         - ...
>         - WAI PF text suggestions for appendix [4]
>                 * integrating [4a] and [4b]
>                 * details around focus discussions
>         - ...
>[4a] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Sep/att-0039/2006-09-13-appendix-E.html
>[4b] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Sep/att-0039/E4_1.htm

WAI PF was apparently somewhat pressed for time, getting these suggestions 
to us in time for today's telecon.  So they are in two, somewhat 
uncoordinated pieces.  At first, I was a bit puzzled by some things like 
E.1 in [4b], especially the first sentence.  I think I have it figured out 
now, for an integrated E.1, after some off-list dialog:

1.) take the E.1 section from [4a]
2.) from [4b], take only the 2nd sentence of 1st paragraph of E.1

That would give us appropriate content, but we would have the minor action 
to smooth it out somewhat.  IMO, all of the E.1 content then is pretty 
reasonable, including the rewordings that have happened in 2nd and 3rd 
paragraphs -- to me, they look like improvements to our original.

I do have one other concern that is of editorial nature:  the way that the 
E.1 content is worded is fine for a W3C Recommendation.  But it has the 
flavor of language from a "W3C internal" document.  Is the wording 
appropriate for a joint OASIS-W3C standard?  Could or should it be 
rephrased slightly so that it's not quite so W3C-centric?

Thoughts?

-Lofton.
Received on Thursday, 14 September 2006 14:13:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:09 GMT