Re: legacy of incompetence? [was: a compromise to the versioning debate]

Le 16 avr. 2007 à 08:16, Henrik Dvergsdal a écrit :
> I share your concerns about the size of the specification and the  
> corresponding error rate - especially since the language (according  
> to the current proposal)  will be defined solely by means of  
> english prose - no formal grammar, schema or anything.

Maybe because there are multiple views and readers of this  
I understand the repeated call of Ian Hickson that in the given  
circumstances it is easier for him to work on a single document.
But labeling part of the document for specific readership could  
improve the quality of the specification as a whole.

When we decide to have a frozen version of the specification some of  
the things that we could do.

* reading the specification with class of products in mind.
   One browser developer will not have the same reading than a HTML  
library developer or an authoring tool.
   -> this requires that some people with their own domain of  
competences review the spec.
      Example: I develop this wysiwyg authoring tool, I will review  
with only this perspective.

* reading the specification with specific users in mind.
   Denis Boudreau started a very good list of specification user  
   -> this requires that some people with a specific profile review  
the spec.
      Example: I am a HTML code monkey (reference to wired), I will  
review with this perspective
               I am teaching HTML to students…

If we prepare well in advance with the list of class of products  and  
user profiles and designated volunteers for reviews. It would be very  
valuable for the specification as a whole.

Karl Dubost -
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog -
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:25:37 UTC