- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 18:08:39 +0100
- To: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On 2 May 2007, at 17:50, Sander Tekelenburg wrote: > At 01:41 +1000 UTC, on 2007-05-03, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > >> Shane McCarron wrote: > > [...] > >>> In the case of XHTML 2 the plan was always to have an >>> implementors guide >> >> What exactly is an implementers guide? Would that contain normative >> requirements, or just be an informative note? >> >>> that went along with it to provide the sort of information I >>> think you >>> are talking about; but without confusing the authoring community >>> with a >>> lot of data that, frankly, is very domain specific. >> >> Specifications are aimed more at implementers than they are at >> authors, >> simply because it is vital that the spec can actually be implemented. >> Book, tutorials and resources can be tailored to be more suitable for >> authors. > > Sorry, but I don't believe for one moment that that will actually > work. If we > want to see more conforming documents out there, the spec will have > to be > made as easy to understand for authors (and authoring tool > vendors!) as > possible. We do however need enough detail in the specification for implementations to be compatible with one-another, which could easily get in the way. I think we should have a separate, non-normative, document for authors, providing all the detail needed for the authors. > The past has shown that leaving that up to third-parties is a very, > very bad idea: authors will not find the 1 decent tutorial > inbetween the > 1000s of nonsensical ones. Why would authors turn to the spec not other tutorials like they already do? - Geoffrey Sneddon
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 17:08:53 UTC