- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 11 Mar 2002 08:29:17 -0600
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org, www-qa-wg@w3.org
On Fri, 2002-03-08 at 10:09, Lofton Henderson wrote: > At 03:22 PM 3/8/02 +0900, Martin Duerst wrote: > >I'm not sure I agree. Pubrules are hard and fast rules; > >if you don't follow them, publication is rejected. It > >should be kept as short as possible. > > Pubrules makes also reference to "How to Write a W3C Technical Report", > > http://www.w3.org/Guide/Reports > > which is considerably lengthier than pubrules itself. It's also obsolete: Most of this document is now in the W3C Manual of Style in development on spec-prod. --SusanL, 17 November 2001 > It seems that the > reference is normative -- "Editors and Team contacts should consult 'How to > Write a W3C Technical Report' for detailed guidance." -- i.e., you have to > do the stuff in "../Reports". Is that correct? no. It says "should", not "must". -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 11 March 2002 09:29:18 UTC