- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 16:34:49 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Karl Dubost wrote: > > Original comment (issue 1049 [1]) > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Jan/0014.html > > Thank you for your comment, which the QA Working Group has accepted. > We have reworded the affected section as you recommended and it now > reads > > [...] there are possible overlaps between the prose and the formal > language, in which case, it is important to define which one is the main > point of reference in case of disjunction. This is actually exactly the opposite of what my comment said. In my opinion, when there is a conflict it means that one or the other of the formal language and the prose is incorrect. There is no guarentee about which one is the correct one. Whenever there is a conflict between prose and formal language, the working group must, IMHO, release errata fixing the problem. Saying that one overrides the other implies some sort of belief that errors will only creep into one and not the other, which is clearly not going to be the case. It also means that people will be discourages from reporting errors to the editors since errors would always be "resolved" (albeit effectively without working group supervision). I do not accept this resolution. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 16:35:25 UTC