W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > July 2006

Re: Running example

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 01:29:46 -0400
Message-Id: <54CEF453-AC1A-4718-9694-27466805052D@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>

On Jul 12, 2006, at 5:53 PM, David Orchard wrote:

> I'm strongly against either:
> - no examples

I'm not against useful examples, i.e., examples that clarify or  
illustrate a tricky point. But what are these in this spec? Do you  
think the spec has too many examples, too few, or about right? Do you  
think there should be a running example?

> - example for every feature/property/etc.
> Relevance is the important and useful part, not completeness.

Did you mean "significance" or "utility"? Presumably every example is  
*relevant*, in the sense of being about the subject matter of the  
section in which it appears.

> There may be some specese that we can do to call out the examples.  In
> all the xml spec that I've done, I used the <example> section to
> identify examples.

This sounds good, esp. if it has a distinctive rendering.

Received on Thursday, 13 July 2006 05:29:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:38:26 UTC