W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > March 2002

Re: xforms:model events

From: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 03:37:56 EST
Message-ID: <74.19b0c6ac.29c45e64@aol.com>
To: www-forms@w3.org
CC: MDubinko@cardiff.com
In a message dated 14/03/02 21:35:04 GMT Standard Time, MDubinko@cardiff.com 

> A well-written article at
> http://www.alistapart.com/stories/readspec/
> summarizes my response.


It's maybe just the tech editor in me but David's article starts with a 
factually inaccurate statement: "THE WORLD WIDE WEB CONSORTIUM (W3C) IS THE 
KEEPER of the specifications for all the technologies on the World Wide Web."

Which, of course, isn't accurate. :) I can accept "some" or "many" but I 
don't believe that "all" is accurate.

And, sadly, David's quote "The Bible was not meant to be read, but 
interpreted." implies that the text (of a W3C spec too) doesn't need to be 
read or readable. If implementors are to reliably *interpret* a W3C spec then 
it does NEED to be readable. Of course it needs to be unambiguous (itself not 
an easy task) but it also needs to be clear, well-expressed and readable. And 
not all tech-savvy people can write! :)

Thankfully the XForms spec is much less unreadable than several others that 
come to mind. [No names mentioned to protect the guilty! <grin/>]

I also think David's comments about feeling free to skip sections in a W3C 
spec should be tempered with the comments about the possibility/likelihood 
that skipping sections can very easily come back to bite you later on.

Now, Micah, just why did your comments or David's article press those 
particular buttons I wonder? :)


Andrew Watt
Received on Saturday, 16 March 2002 03:38:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:36:05 UTC