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: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 03:59:17 -0600
Message-ID: <4ED8A175.8010708@aptest.com>
To: spec-prod@w3.org
right on brother!  whoever has the energy to do this work should do 
whatever they can and the rest of us useless people will comment from 
the sidelines.

On 12/2/2011 3:55 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> 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.
>

-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
+1 763 786 8160 x120
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 10:00:27 GMT

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