- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:05:50 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28863 --- Comment #2 from Stefan Schumacher <stefan@duckflight.de> --- My comment actually targeted the visible text in the spec, not the comment. If the facts are unknown to the authors, they should mark it as an example that might be not precise instead of letting it look like a fact, since they talk about a person of history and W3C specs might be seen as reliable sources in some centuries in future. I found another comment. That seemed to be ignored at that time too. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0376.html So it does look like I am not the only one who is concerned about the wording of that paragraph. But if you like to keep it that way, fine with me. In my translation I will put a comment then, so that at least the readers of the translation know, that it is not a known fact by the editors and that it could be different. Not a shame for editors of a technical spec not to know everything about history, since that matter might be a subject of intense research for centuries of many people. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 29 June 2015 14:05:54 UTC