Re: Final draft of Coremob 2012

On 2/1/13 1:16 PM, "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org> wrote:

>On 1 Feb 2013, at 3:03 PM, Suresh Chitturi wrote:
>
>>> From: Tobie Langel [mailto:tobie@fb.com]
>>> Subject: Re: Final draft of Coremob 2012
>>> 
>>> On 1/31/13 8:15 AM, "Jo Rabin" <jo@linguafranca.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Thank you very much Tobie, please flip away and I'll push my button.
>>> 
>>> There you go:
>>> http://coremob.github.com/coremob-2012/FR-coremob-20130131.html
>> 
>> Notice that there is a mismatch between the name of the report of the
>>title of the document.
>> Naming the title to "Specification" can be misleading, and a better
>>name would be "Final Community Group Report".
>> 
>> There were some discussions on this particular topic during the TPAC
>>and post TPAC, and I believe the conclusion from that is the same i.e.
>>not to use the term specification for CG deliverables.
>> Ian, can probably shed some light?:)
>
>Hi Suresh,
>
>I would recommend saying "Report" instead of "Specification" here.
>
>We've been discussing in the council this topic of naming; we're not done
>yet. But where I heard agreement is:
>
> * the class of thing is a Community Group Report (as we call it in the
>process).
> * the title can use the word "specification" if the document is indeed a
>specification (e.g., the "FooML Specification")

Agreed. This switched from being a spec to being a report midway and the
title was not modified accordingly.

Happy to hear a better way to address the problem than wait for a release
with errata if you think this is a critical issue.

--tobie

Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 21:25:57 UTC