- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:19:54 -0500
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAOk_reF2vWDC-Ap0O88pAaYtnHN4-+G-BKA=CHL=aYQFdPb6iw@mail.gmail.com>
Daniel said: I would like to add something about modularization we rarely think of, > being spec authors: a collection of lightweight specs is better for > Web authors than a single huge document. And I suppose implementors > don't really care as soon as the specs are well written. I agree... but it is obviously incumbent upon the spec authors, even if they are in disparate subgroups focused upon different modules, to ensure that when the modules are assembled they form a cohesive whole. So, if we are going to "modularize", someone(s) need to be the architect(s). We don't do anyone any good if at the end of the day there is some new, awesome feature that no one can actually support in a consistent fashion because the way it integrates isn't obvious and each implementor does it differently. Fortunately, one of the things the W3C brings to the table is process. Sometimes heavyweight, but still. And part of that process is the document life cycle. The transition from CR to PR helps us ensure that the spec is implementable. But even that *check* is only as good as the underlying spec, it's relationship to the other specs it requires, and the tests. I know, I am rambling a little. My point is that it is very very important that, as modules are developed, they fit well into the puzzle. The more puzzle pieces, the harder it is to make that certain.
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2014 20:20:22 UTC