Hi Olaf, Is your distinction between "good" and unqualified similar to terms like "valid" or "well-formed"? If so, I think the qualification of what makes a (portable) (web) document "good" would be defined in detail in forthcoming specifications. We are attempting to create a quick-reference glossary to enable clearer communications. I think the use of [RFC2119] language clarifies intent. [RFC2119]. S. Bradner. Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels. March 1997. Best Current Practice. URL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119 Tzviya Siegman Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead Wiley 201-748-6884 tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 4:42 AM To: Olaf Drümmer Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG; Leonard Rosenthol; Deborah Kaplan; Ralph Swick; Bill Kasdorf; Bill McCoy Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) On 08 Sep 2015, at 10:26 , Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com<mailto:olaf@druemmer.com>> wrote: Might be just my very personal point of view (though stemming from having been involved in committee work for about 20 years) but unless you clearly separate one (core definition of what something is) from the other (what would be required to make 'it' such that it has desirable characteristics ...) you might have never ending fruitless discussions for not worthwhile reason. Anyway, I'll shut up now on this aspect... Let us see what other people say... Ivan Olaf On 8 Sep 2015, at 06:22, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote: I am a bit afraid of overcomplicating things by introducing too many terms. This is why it says "should" and not a "must": this is a pragmatic choice... Ivan ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 13:22:52 UTC