W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > April to June 2002

Comments on Manual of Style

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 11:29:55 +0200
Message-Id: <200204300929.g3U9Tt025817@zidane.inria.fr>
To: spec-prod@w3.org
cc: lesch@w3.org

http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/

I still don't like the fact that this document is a superset of
pubrules, as this kind of duplication may lead to inconsistencies and
two different standards to end up with.

I think this manual should become the reference, with a clear
indication of what is MUST, what is SHOULD and what is MAY, and I
encourage you to use a checkpoint style with level of priorities like
the WAI guidelines (P1 for MUST, level AA, etc).

Pubrules would just become the LevelA.

This would make the conformance requirement much clearer. I found
the statement in 2.
 "Conformance to this manual is optional and unlike in previous
  versions, there are no conformance requirements."
followed by a bunch of must quite confusing.


The rest is less important:
 I think it'd be better to put all the copyright/ipr in one section
 instead of two as now.

 You should refer to this doc instead of the odoriferous css as a good 
 example (and maybe making it a note).

 You should add a direct link to a list of authoring tools that
 support XMLspec (free or commercial).

 
Where is the Manual Of Style linked from ?
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 05:40:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:11 GMT