- From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:02:49 -0400
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, OWL 2 <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
Sandro Hawke wrote: >>> I remember, does it exclude 2 cards recto verso = 4 pages ? >>> and even so, why should we be so rigid ? >>> > > >> if keeping a small amount more length increases either its useful >> content or its understandability, that is a tradeoff that i think is >> worth making. >> > > Maybe we can compromise (if necessary) by having any material that > pushes it beyond two pages be omitted from the 2-page version? It's > easy enough to mark text (whole sections, or even just words) with > something like class="no-card", and have it not be rendered it the PDF > translation process. > > -- Sandro > > i think this and other suggestions for how to cut are all useful and reasonable. the goal is to be of the most use. note that the portion of the owl overview document this is trying to replace did attempt to be comprehensive but that was easier in owl 1 than owl 2 (and conceivably may be perceived as less critical now). if we can serve more users well with one 2 page pdf and another longer html version, that is fine with me. the question is how much we have to sacrifice in content (and potentially understandability) to hit 2 pages. bijan (and others) had a few nice suggestions that may help. perhaps we can try the formatting suggestions and see how close that gets us. d
Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 17:03:37 UTC