W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

Re: ISSUE 79 editorial changes

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:21:42 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0271003231421u304a9dd2oedf835c5deef657d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 23.03.2010 21:48, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
> This just illustrates that we're disagreeing a lot on spec writing style.
>
> Defining syntax and semantics of this doesn't require any "conformance
> requirements". Just state what the damn value is: a set of comma-separated
> keywords.
>
> There's really no point in insulting the reader with something as complex
> as:
>
> "To obtain the list of keywords that the author has specified as applicable
> to the page, the user agent must run the following steps:
>
>   1.
>
>      Let keywords be an empty list.
>   2.
>
>      For each meta element with a name attribute and a content attribute and
> whose name attribute's value is keywords, run the following substeps:
>         1.
>
>            Split the value of the element's content attribute on commas.
>         2.
>
>            Add the resulting tokens, if any, to keywords.
>   3.
>
>      Remove any duplicates from keywords.
>   4.
>
>      Return keywords. This is the list of keywords that the author has
> specified as applicable to the page."
>
> ...which in the end says exactly the same, except that it makes a
> superfluous statements about repeating keywords and repeating instances of
> the <meta> element.
>
>> whether the revisions (committed as a separate change) maintain his
>> intent before closing the issue.
>
> I'm not totally happy with the wording, but I have similar concerns with the
> whole spec.
>
> Let's close this issue,
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

Agree, both as to this problem happening all throughout the document,
and closing this discussion.

I'm just amazed that we actually have to put in the HTML5 W3C
specification, about how to process a keyword list.

HTML5 for Dummies I guess.

Regards

Shelley
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2010 21:22:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:00 UTC