Re: Closing action-306: Comments on the QRG

From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Closing action-306: Comments on the QRG
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:22:16 +0100

> 2009/3/17 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:
>> For the records, these were my comments on the QRG document. In fact,
>> these comments went to Jie before I took the action last week, and the
>> current wiki page reflects most of the proposed changes already. But as
>> there was a public action on me, it is better to have that on record, too.
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> - This is a matter of taste, of course. Personally, I find the gray*
> 
> indeed
> 
>> background shading a little bit disturbing. I wonder what other
>> typographic trick we should use to denote OWL 2 specific features, but
>> something less disturbing would be nice. (Maybe some lighter colour, for
>> example?) I also wonder whether we could find a trick (eg, by chaning
>> the css values via a javascript?) so that I could choose _not_ to
>> highlight the differences. It is of course great to have those clearly
>> denoted for those who make a transition from OWL 1 but, after a while,
>> these differences become without interest, and I might prefer not to
>> have them highlighted at all. The same holds for the '?' links that
>> refer to the NF&R; once people are hooked on OWL 2, those issues become
>> moot, and the really important reference will be the primer (in my
>> view...) and not that one...
> 
> Of course, I do not agree with this view, I think that pointing to the
> *new* features is helpful  + harmless.
> Moreover, if you check the record, if I remember correctly, Jie was
> asked earlier at a telecon to put these links in the QRG.

A pointer to the relevant discussion would be very helpful.

> Also in fact, Jie sent me comments on the NF&R last week before I took
> an action asking to add some missing features in NF&R so as to allow
> to point to them. I have now precisely finished to add them.
> 
> Christine

peter

Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 17:26:27 UTC