W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > January 2015

Re: Working on FPWD, more to do

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 01:04:38 +0100
Message-ID: <54C82796.6000500@few.vu.nl>
To: <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Phil,

> - I encourage writers of BPs 1 - 21 to take a look at what I've changed and put back/ make any more changes you feel necessary.

For the section on data vocabularies, I've only noted good changes, thanks!

The only part I'm hesitant about is what we're discussing in the parallel thread "Deferred to Linked Data Best Practices for vocab re-use" - but h I'm not going to raise it here again!

Cheers,

Antoine

On 1/27/15 9:52 PM, Phil Archer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been preparing the BP doc for its FPWD publication - a task that I have not yet completed as, I'm sorry to say, there is still quite a lot more to do and what I have done has taken a lot longer than I anticipated.
>
> I've been focused on a couple of issues.
>
> First, several BPs included RFC 2119 keywords in the possible implementation section and/or the why section. The BP template states that the Intended Outcome is normative - that's where MUST, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT etc. belong. They are repeated in the short description underneath the title but not elsewhere.
>
> In other words, some writers have evidently been a little confused about the structure. In trying to create a more regular structure I have had to reorder the text a little but, as far as possible, have kept my own views out of it (I haven't always succeeded).
>
> Taking out the RFC 2119 bits of the implementation sections has meant more than just removing emphasis, it's meant quite significant rewrites - more than I fee comfortable doing without WG review.
>
> I keep in mind Antoine's point about writing BPs that say what humans MUST do - so I've made a few edits to say what publishers MUST do for the benefit of human users.
>
> Some BPs needed more rewriting than others of course.
>
> In doing this I have long missed the deadline for getting the document published today, and, as I say, I've made such changes that I feel I have gone beyond editorial changes and really feel we need another WG review before publishing.
>
> So, at the risk of upsetting lots of people, I suggest:
>
> - I will do my best to make more changes tomorrow (caveat, I have a meeting in London tomorrow so I'll mostly be doing this on train and may not finish).
>
> - I encourage writers of BPs 1 - 21 to take a look at what I've changed and put back/ make any more changes you feel necessary.
>
> - If you wrote any of BPs 22 - 33, please take a careful look at the structure of the earlier ones and see if you want to make any changes to your text.
>
> - Editors - I've gone well beyond what I ought to do to your document here. I hope you don't mind.
>
> - Chairs - sorry, I really think the WG needs to look again and vote again on Friday.
>
> Again, I hope I haven't upset anyone here, but reading through the doc line by line I have felt significant changes were necessary.
>
> Phil.
>
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2015 00:05:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 28 January 2015 00:05:13 UTC