Re: [XBL] Abstract Unclear

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Doug Schepers wrote:
>> But I thought it was important that readers get an understanding 
>> of the scope of the technology, and not be bogged down in seeming 
>> contradictions.
> 
> I honestly don't think this will really bog anyone down.

You may be right.  Let's hope so.


>>> Besides your version sounding much more marketting-y and longer, I 
>>> don't see that it's especially better.
>> Naturally, you already understand what XBL is for, but you aren't your 
>> audience.
> 
> My concern with your proposed text was with its use of hype terms and its 
> length, it was not an issue with its content per se.

I have no idea what you mean.  What "hype terms"?


>> I don't care about the length or the actual wording.  I just want the 
>> abstract to be accurate and reasonably comprehensive.  I don't think 
>> that the current version is.  Maybe others do.
> 
> If someone proposes an abstract that is more accurate and comprehensive 
> than the current text without hype, without being too long, and without 
> focusing on inconsequential details, I'd be glad to use the text. The 
> current abstract is the result of many years of comments being taken into 
> account and I therefore do not feel it should be changed lightly.

Well, I'm too prolix, true.  But I hoped that you would take 
constructive criticism more seriously and improve the readability of the 
spec.

-- 

Regards-
-Doug

Research and Standards Engineer
6th Sense Analytics
www.6thsenseanalytics.com
mobile: 919.824.5482

Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2007 23:28:50 UTC