I guess. The provenance of any specification is important to those who review it. Or at least it is to me. Also, the look and feel on that site makes me want to punch something. But that's for another time I imagine. Let me be clear. I am NOT objecting to anything here. And I don't care what sort or URI is in a CFC. What I do care about is that W3C specs look, feel, and taste like W3C specs. That's about branding, but also about process, copyrights, patent disclosures, relationship to other specifications and other standards groups, reviewer comments, and many other things that I am sure some thing of as "cruft". Fine. Call me crufty. I am old, and I will own that. But please let's not lose sight of our overall responsibility to produce W3C specifications. On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: > On 04/03/2015 15:27 , Shane McCarron wrote: > >> 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"? >> > > The ED is published here: > > https://specs.webplatform.org/html-aria/webspecs/master/ > > which is nicely devoid of all the boilerplate. The goal is to encourage > people to focus on the actual content rather than the padding and > paraphernalia. > > > -- > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon > -- Shane McCarron Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2015 14:59:39 UTC