RE: #faithful-infoset wordsmithing

On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 14:03 -0400, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
wrote:
> > From: Dan Connolly
> > [ . . . ]
> > I put something like that in the status section.
> > 
> > [[
> > GRDDL is intended to contribute to addressing Web Architecture issues
> > such as RDFinXHTML-35, namespaceDocument-8, and 
> > xmlFunctions-34 as well
> > as issues postponed by the RDF Core working group such as
> > rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf and faq-html-compliance. In particular,
> > the GRDDL Working Group has postponed issue-faithful-infoset, and
> > anticipates that the resolution of TAG issue xmlFunctions-34 will
> > provide further clarification and guidance.
> > ]]
> >  -- http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec 1.272
> 
> This looks harmless, but I don't think it is enough by itself.  I think
> it is important to mention it in the body also, as I explain below.
> 
> > [ . . . ]
> > References to the Working Group, W3C process, and that sort of thing
> > are fine in the status section, but I don't think they have any
> > place in the body of the spec.
> 
> Please *do* mention TAG issue xmlFunctions-34 in the body, because that
> makes it much clearer to the reader what questions we are hoping the
> resolution of that TAG issue will provide "clarification and guidance"
> about.  I think it is far more important to be clear than to avoid
> mentioning it just for the sake of not looking odd.

The text in 1.272 is sufficiently clear, to me.
 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 19:37:05 UTC