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 23:41:50 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-28015-523-RqkivlORvO@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28015

--- Comment #5 from Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> ---
(In reply to Liam R E Quin from comment #3)
> [personal response]
> 
> | 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. 
> 
> Since we had over 50 implementations of XQuery 1 and XPath 2, I'm not sure
> that comments like this are productive. Clearly people outside the Working
> Groups were able to implement the specifications. In some cases such people
> sent test results, without having previously contacted us.
> 
> That's not to say the documents are perfect and could never be improved. But
> they are not as bad as you imply.

Personal:

Liam I think you took my comment more personally than I ever intended. My point
was to illustrate that drafting a document a group understands isn't the same
thing as drafting a standard for public consumption. I took great pains to
express my appreciation for the work on these documents so I would ask that you
re-read my comments as trying to make a useful distinction, if poorly worded.

BTW, I never said the documents were "bad," or even implied that. I said
readers could read them more easily with specific references between these
"coordinated" drafts. Why do you take criticism = bad?

Patrick

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 16 March 2015 23:41:51 UTC

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