Re: ISSUE 79 editorial changes

On Mar 23, 2010, at 6:27 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:

> Issue 79 passed without objection. No objection as to wording, or
> intent. However, the editor has decided to change the text[1].
> It may seem a trivial thing, but what was a concise statement is now a
> meandering overlong tutorial, with related minute instructions telling
> all user agents what they're supposed to do with this keyword list --
> because goodness knows, user agents wouldn't know what to do with a
> keyword list. Stupid user agents.

As far as I'm concerned, tightening up wording is fine, so long as it  
maintains the intent of the original proposal. I would guess most  
reviewers of the Change Proposal were considering primarily the  
concept of the change, not the exact word choices. Otherwise they  
would probably have noted the fact that the original was ungrammatical  
and did not state any conformance requirements for either documents or  
implementations. That being said, I'm waiting for Julian to check  
whether the revisions (committed as a separate change) maintain his  
intent before closing the issue.


Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2010 20:49:04 UTC