- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:45:59 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
- Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Doug Schepers wrote: > > > > > > > > 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"? "even", "any binding the author wishes", "achieve effects that are otherwise difficult or impossible". I prefer abstracts to be much more reserved. But that may be my British heritage showing. > > > 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. My apologies if your impression is that I am refusing constructive feedback. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 11 January 2007 00:46:18 UTC