- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:34:14 -0600
- To: Nick Van den Bleeken <Nick.Van.den.Bleeken@inventivegroup.com>
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, "www-forms-editor@w3.org" <www-forms-editor@w3.org>
On Jul 31, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Nick Van den Bleeken wrote: > Maybe Steven's 'XForms for HTML authors' [1] is a better place to add some in depth examples of XML-events ? What do you think? > > Nick > > 1: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2010/xforms11-for-html-authors/ Examples are good. So if Steven has the time and energy, I can only wish him Godspeed, and I look forward to looking at what he comes up with. But I do think the spec can and should be made clearer and easier to follow, so I don't think adding examples to Steven's tutorial is a substitute for revising the spec. I recognize that opinions may vary as to when a change makes something clearer and when not, so such revisions can be tricky. I also recognize that the spec is not intended as a tutorial, and I don't propose that it should be made into one. And I also recognize that it is widely believed in working groups that "nobody actually reads the spec anyway, so it doesn't matter if it's hard to read". I think there are not many readers for spec prose, but for what it's worth, I do read specs, and am thus a counterexample to that belief -- to make the belief empirically tenable, you would have to rephrase it as "nobody worth bothering about reads the spec". in sum, I will not be surprised if the WG feels a certain reluctance to agree with my suggestion that the spec be revised here. But it says here that I nonetheless think the spec should be revised on this point. -- **************************************************************** * C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC * http://www.blackmesatech.com * http://cmsmcq.com/mib * http://balisage.net ****************************************************************
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 17:34:43 UTC