- From: Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 21:34:25 -0400
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Greetings! In order to move beyond "takes too much time" versus "useful to have better references" I reviewed XPath 3.1 and attempted to limit myself to issues discoverable by providing more precise references than used in the text. I did discover more than a few cases where the current draft uses the type of precise references I have been advocating. I also discovered cases there the terminology used in XPath 3.1 differs from the terminology used in the work it references. I would estimate that it took about eight (8) hours, not counting data entry with bugzilla to examine the references to external works in XPath 3.1. Hopefully that will give the working group an idea of a range of the investment to perform such a proofing and you can judge the results from my bug reports. Whether that will persuade the working group that the level of pointing I am advocating is worth its attention is, of course, a question the working group must resolve for itself. I wasn't about to reach XDM this past week but it has numerous precise references and fewer of the document level pointing ones, or at least that is my impression. BTW, I appreciate the suggestion that I join the working group but resources for membership and to devote to the working group are lacking at the moment. I will try to contribute as I am able. Hope everyone is at the start of a great week! Patrick PS: I may have a few hours to look at the other pending drafts later this week.
Received on Monday, 23 March 2015 01:34:55 UTC