- From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:25:50 -0700
- To: "Manu Sporny" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "HTMLWG WG" <public-html@w3.org>
> Let me know what you think of the new set of objective criteria for > determining whether a warning should be publicly visible in the HTML > WG draft. The name "Warning" here and the use of that red is inflamatory. In the hierarchy of technical communications, I believe Warning traditionally means chance or certainty of actual physical hazard to someone or maybe something.materially important. The idea is that there is a physical danger. Thus, in this specification I can't imagine seeing a real Warning notice. I think these are more like annotations, and really, if used, it needs a placard or icon along with it that better conveys the idea that it is not dangerous to read any part of the standard. , Maybe I should read up some more (links welcome) and usually I might expect to see 'normative' content (required) and 'informative' content (examples). I usually see examples as "informative' content when at a stage where, well, the examples may not be of the certain quality and robustness of the 'normative' content, or just to make clear that the example is not the only way to do it. This added content is of an entirely different type. I would name it 'critical' content because the info is offered as informed and well intentioned and even offically-endorsed commentary on the official state of the current 'normative' and 'informative' content. Every one of these items must be backed up by bugs/issues/status, etc. so the reader is rewarded by being able to track the issue details and identify current alternatives, and maybe even form an opinion and maybe make a vote. But more deeply I think of this project as an HTML application to improve the standard that needs some development work (proof of no unintended whatevers) before it gets plugged in tighly and shown to the public. Clearly this task is also the overall responsibliity of Ian, because he is responsible for the golden keystrokes. I do think there should be another one or more 'critical' editors that carefully plug into the published document. So Manu, I think this project First needs to be able to show a nice presentation of only this critical content, like all by itself in a form representative of what it will look like when used with the spec layout. Then, finish development of how to actually offer it to the user as the spec is being used for doing HTML browser implementations or authoring. Finally, when this important application of HTML is ready to show to the public without distraction from the main points of providing absolutely clear technically complete and accurate normative content along with state-of-the-art informative content then let's publish it. My vote: a promising connection but not ready for the public at this time. Thanks for this important initiative. With connection to preexisting knowledge bases and an organized secure and timely linkage between basic WG process documents and tools, this can be a great contribution to somebody understnding the current best 'official' added or alternative techniques or opinions at any current or historical point. I think this is a new class of editorship that does not currently imply any actual access to the current normative and informative components of the standard. Again, thanks to all contributors to this important work, and I have confidence this is already showing to be potentially a strong tool if maintained meaningfully now and as it develops, but just don't think it is quite ready for introduction at this Important initial draft. If it shows to be of great value within the WG(s), as I think it may due to its great potential, then fine, it may well be of use to the interested public outside the related WG. What do I do to get bug 7075 into this process? Thanks to All and Best Regards, Joe
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 18:26:36 UTC