W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > April 2004

RE: [OEP] "Classes as values": summary of the discussion so far and second draft $swbpd

From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:38:20 -0700
Message-ID: <823043AB1B52784D97754D186877B6CF042669B1@xch-nw-12.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, <guarino@loa-cnr.it>

I agree with Jeremy that length limits often do produce better documents. It is a question of judgment, whether to leave something out because it is rambling vs. legitimate and very useful extra detail giving people deeper insights into an issue.

Mike


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com] 
Sent:	Wednesday, April 28, 2004 6:40 AM
To:	ewallace@cme.nist.gov
Cc:	public-swbp-wg@w3.org; guarino@loa-cnr.it
Subject:	Re: [OEP] "Classes as values": summary of the discussion so far   and second draft  $swbpd


ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote:

> "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
>>On document length...
>>
>>To the extent that we have spen the time producing useful content, I think 
>>it would be a shame to cut it out just to keep documents short. Perhaps 
>>better is to structure the documents so that there is a good exec summary, 
>>and for those that wish to dig deeper, extra details may be provided.  Much 
>>easier in a Web document, but possible for flat documents too, with extra 
>>work. There could two or even three levels of depth for those who really 
>>want the gory details. Much more work to produce - a question of balance 
>>and priorities and what authors feel inspired to do.
> 
> 
> I agree with this.  Don't delete information, just make it easier to find.
> A standard structure for these notes would certainly help with this.
> 
> -Evan
> 

Length limits often are a good discipline for being concise and getting 
to the point. (I am not sufficiently informed to have an opinion on the 
specific note in question)

Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 28 April 2004 12:39:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:30:53 UTC