I guess. And while I might agree with you that there is cargo cult nonsense that is in that header, it is required currently and expected by reviewers. I guess I don't understand the reason to not embed these settings in the document. Does it have some other audience that would resist knowing about copyrights, status, places for comments to go, previous publications, and all the other goodness that is part of the "cruft"? On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: > On 03/03/2015 20:32 , Shane McCarron wrote: > >> On a document processing note... >> >> You are creating a lot of the boilerplate by using the ReSpec processing >> of URI query strings. That's great, but makes the URI look a little >> ugly. I would suggest that you set those options in the ReSpec head in >> your source so that document viewers get a consistent view of the draft >> even if they don't add all the cruft onto the URI. >> > > I don't think that URL aesthetics are a consideration for a CfC. Most of > the boilerplate required in W3C specifications is, quite frankly, cruft > accumulated over the years much of which we could do without. I actually > reckon it's pretty sensible to put as little as possible of it in the > document and only override it on the URL when necessary. It keeps things > simple where they need to be. > > -- > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon > -- Shane McCarron Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2015 14:27:51 UTC