W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > March 2015

[Bug 28015] Vague references – $N versus 5000 x $N

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 20:18:46 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-28015-523-0UifM4Vbka@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28015

C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com
         Resolution|---                         |WONTFIX

--- Comment #1 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> ---
There was substantial sympathy for the point raised here when the XML Query and
XSLT working groups discussed this bug report on their joint call today.

In some cases, of course, the specs do point to specific passages of the
external specs, but not in all.  In particular, when in the editors' judgement
the specific reference is important for correct understanding of the passage in
our own spec, the editors attempt to provide specific references.  If there are
particular cases in which more specific reference is essential to
understanding, but only generic reference is provided, then it would be helpful
to raise bugs against the particular cases.

At the same time, however, there was reluctance to adopt a general rule that
all references to other specs be accompanied by the identification of specific
passages in those specs, and the WGs did not adopt any such general rule in our
discussion today.

In some cases, it would be difficult to identify one specific location in the
other spec.  The notion that simple types (including but not limited to
atomics) possess a lexical space and a value space is so fundamental to XSD's
system of simple types, and so pervasive, that the identification of a specific
textual locus would seem pointless.  In this particular case, the situation of
a reader who does not know what a value space is will not in fact be made much
more comfortable by a specific reference to the definition of 'value space' in
XSD Part 2, since the editors of XSD 1.0 are on record as saying many times
that the XSD spec was written only for implementors, and that the difficulties
of other readers were of no consequence.

But even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that a specific location could
almost always usefully be cited, and that doing so would save the reader a bit
of time, the WGs see no prospect of following consistently and in all cases the
good advice given here.  We agree that it would be good to save the reader's
time, but the reader's time doesn't come from the same budget as the editor's
time.  We do not believe we have the resources necessary to instruct our
editors to adopt this principle.

Accordingly, I am closing this bug with the status WONTFIX.  This is intended
to signal that we agree, in principle, that in a perfect world the specs would
do a better job on this point.  But in this imperfect world, given the choice
of accepting this imperfection and the delays which would be incurred by
attempting to remove it, we choose to an imperfect but published spec over a
perfect but perpetually unfinished one.

Patrick, in your role as originator of the bug report, you now have the
responsibility of changing the status of the bug from RESOLVED to CLOSED, to
signal that you are satisfied that the WGs have given serious consideration to
your comment and that you are willing to accept the WGs' resolution of the
issue, or else to change the status to REOPEN, to indicate that you are not
willing to accept the WGs' proposed disposition of the comment.  If we haven't
heard back from you in two weeks, we will take your silence to mean consent.

Thank you for your careful reading and comments; I am sorry we were unable to
resolve this issue in a more satisfactory way.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2015 20:18:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:53 UTC