Re: [W3C docs] We should teach by example.

On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 00:36 +0900, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
> Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, 2007-07-06 10:22 -0500:
> 
> > On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 23:21 +0900, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
> > > Josh Sled <jsled@asynchronous.org>, 2007-07-06 09:50 -0400:
> > > 
> > > > gonchuki <gonchuki@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > > I have been looking through the source code of the "HTML 5 differences
> > > > > from HTML 4" document [1] as part of the Spanish translation task
> > > > > along with Alejandro Fernández and it came to my notice that the
> > > > > source is in pretty bad condition.
> > > > 
> > > > While it looks like it's missing a close </body></html>, it's not obvious
> > > > why you think it's in "bad condition", or isn't "friendly" or "human
> > > > readable".   What's an example?
> > > 
> > > I'd like to suggest that if we want to keep list traffic on the
> > > HTML working group's mailing list focused on the work that the
> > > group is chartered to do,
> > 
> > Surely this document qualifies.
> > 
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/diff/
> 
> It certainly qualifies for discussion of its technical content.
> Does it qualify for discussion of the formatting and indent style
> and such of the markup in its source?

Yes. The document is a deliverable of this group and reflects
on all of us as members. It seems quite reasonable for
gonchuki to suggest to the editor, via the WG mailing list,
that the source formatting reflects poorly,
especially since the source is HTML, and we are the HTML WG.

I'm intrigued by the claim that source formatting contributes
to accessibility. I'm not at all persuaded; I would have to
see considerably more evidence. Josh Sled's reply is a request
for that evidence. I'm interested to see the discussion continue,
and I think it's a reasonable use of group email bandwidth.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 15:50:01 UTC