Re: [ACTION-527]: Propose spec change to address extensibility in general

First of all I explicitly agree that the normative changes we have agreed
make the second last call acceptable for me.
I will open the editorial issue in the second last call.
I disagree that it is spreading useless info around the spec. It is very
useful from a naive implementer point of view.
If someone just wants to check the definition of an element. How is he or
she supposed to know that there is an extensibility statement in appendix D
that is supposed to override the definition? It is just unwarranted
sloppiness.. It is an issue if the spec does not contain useful info in the
one place you have every right to expect it.
More inline

Dr. David Filip
=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
*cellphone: +353-86-0222-158*
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie


On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:

> Am 16.05.13 16:16, schrieb Yves Savourel:
>
>  Hi Felix, all,
>>
>>  Well, we can also put it on the beginning of
>>> http://www.w3.org/**International/multilingualweb/**
>>> lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#**datacategory-description<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#datacategory-description>
>>> and say "This statement relates to all elements defined in this
>>> specification".
>>> In that way it "inherits" to all definitions. Is there a problem with
>>> this?
>>>
>> I have a problem with it: We shouldn't spread non-useful information all
>> over the specification.
>> And we've spent enough time with this.
>>
>
> Agree.

I disagree,  IMHO we should do at least this, although it is a suboptimal
solution. Making it inherit onto below definitions works form the point of
view of the normative logic of the document, the contradiction we have now
is resolved, still it is a poor solution from a consumer point of view..

You also miss the extensibility by *elements* on <its:rules>

>
>
>
>> David agreed with moving forward with the text in appendix D, the
>> statement 2-5 and the schema changes.
>>
>
> You are right.
>
>
>  The prose matches the schema, all is normative.
>>
> The element descriptions do not match, they are in conflict. This will
need to be resolved no later than the second last call.

>
>> We should do those (most is done already) and David may happily open an
>> issue after the 2nd last call is published if he things some editorial
>> change is need.
>>
> I am absolutely convinced that it is needed, and I will open the issue if
not fixed now. I volunteer for implementing this as soon as I will have my
CVS account set up.
I am sincerely convinced that we are doing a poor standard writing job if
we leave the element descriptions in conflict with appendix D and schema.

>
>> (and you seem to be of the same mind in you last email:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-multilingualweb-**
>> lt/2013May/0173.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013May/0173.html>
>> )
>>
>
> Yes, I am. So fine by me to close this with the draft "as is" now.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
>
>> cheers,
>> -ys
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>