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: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 19:30:53 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-28015-523-fXM8MqcdW3@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28015

Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |---

--- Comment #2 from Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> ---
I have thought very long and hard about asking the wg to reopen this issue. I
was nearly persuaded by Michael's comments but I want to make sure the wg
understands the consequences of "wontfix," the full consequences of "wontfix."

I concede at the outset that there are many standards, due to poor structuring,
are more difficult to reference than others. However, there are references in
this group of four standards, that were closely coordinated according to the
PR, that are just a vague as to historical references we all use in XML. To say
nothing of internal references that also lack section titles/numbers. 

I am sure that to the editors and members of the wg, all of these documents are
nearly transparent. That is no surprise given the amount of attention and time
that has been invested in them. 

But the goal of these documents was to be standards, not memos of a common
understanding reached by a small group over the months/years of working on
these documents. 

A standard for electrical plugs or railway track isn't much of a standard if
anyone approaching it had better be a regular attendee at the meetings creating
it. 

I don't mean to minimize the burden structuring and cross-referencing would put
on the editors. Been there and done that personally. And there is no need to
fear a long list of definitions in part of the document. Definitions at
appropriate places are not a problem so long as they can be cited with
certainly and not batches of definitions strung together.

Separation of definitions from each other also has the advantage that any
comment to be made about the subject of that definition can be made in place.
One need not worry that somewhere else in the document there is another
statement about that item. (I am not saying that is the case here, I got stuck
on organization issues and haven't reached pulling every item and its mentions
out of this group of texts.)

I deeply appreciate all of the work that has gone into these drafts and hope
that at a minimum, internal references and references between these drafts can
be made more useful for readers and hopefully other implementors. 

Patrick

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 16 March 2015 19:30:59 UTC

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