W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: What are the requirements/problems? Re: Working on New Styles for W3C Specifications

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 10:55:58 +0100
Cc: "chairs@w3.org Chairs" <chairs@w3.org>, "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <32FDF38B-7AC4-410E-987F-80CB4269575E@berjon.com>
To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
On Dec 2, 2011, at 08:38 , Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> On 2011/12/02 6:20, Eric Johnson wrote:
>> The ideal in usability would be to let people annotate the
>> specification, and then choose who they wish to share those annotations
>> with (authors, public, only themselves). For W3C sanity, the annotated
>> version wouldn't be at the official URL....
> 
> Just for the record: Lots of that work has already been done. Check out Annotea (http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/). For various reasons, it never really started to catch on.

I've used Annotea in a real product — it wasn't that great, and I wouldn't recommend building on that for specification annotation.

That being said, at TPAC we talked about "rich specs" with any amount of extra functionality, and annotations were part of it. That's a software project though, we shouldn't do it by consensus. Whoever gets the cycles to get it rolling should jump on it, and we'll figure things out from there.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 09:56:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:18 GMT