W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2012

Re: Fw: CfC: Close ISSUE-177: ietf-id-wip by Amicable Resolution

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:24:06 +0100
Message-ID: <4F21C476.3050709@gmx.de>
To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 2012-01-26 21:52, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
> Larry Masinter<masinter@adobe.com>, 2012-01-26 05:52 -0800:
>> this html-wg issue concerns whether an undated url reference to another
>> specification is labeled as "work in progress" so that reviewers are
>> alerted to the loose binding.
>> is that just a matter of taste with no substance?
> Maybe you can point out to me how actual behavior of conforming UAs that
> implement the spec would be affected by the proposed change.
> If you have time, maybe you can look at the following and point out what
> effect its resolution would have on conforming UAs -
>    Consider reducing verbosity when talking about code points
>    https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11124
> The change proposed there requires literally hundreds of edits to the
> current spec.

It has no impact on conforming UAs. It does have impact on the 
readability of the spec.

Example: the spec currently contains 36 instances of

   "U+0030 DIGIT ZERO (0) to U+0039 DIGIT NINE (9)"

Part of the proposal is to define "ASCII digit" once, and use it 
throughout (BTW: that's something that can be done mechanically).

Similarly, defining "uppercase ASCII letters" and "lowercase ASCII 
letter" would make the spec more readable.

Also, I'd like to point out that I wouldn't have raised this issue 
unless *others* wouldn't have complained it as well:


Also, if you look at the bug, you'll notice that several people agreed 
that reducing verbosity would be good.

I realize that you either disagree that this affects the readability of 
the spec, or that you think that it doesn't matter. But please respect 
that others have a different opinion.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 21:24:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:13 UTC