- From: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:31:36 -0700
- To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
On Apr 26, 2013, at 1:05 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > On Apr 26, 2013, at 10:26 AM, John Simpson wrote: > >> Apologies. I'm reading too fast. You do in fact say that it is a streamlined version. What's not clear to me is whether that status qualifier is intended for both TPE and TCS documents and both will published as Public Working Drafts. > > I think it is for TCS. I already updated TPE's status section and > the changes suggested by Nick don't make sense for TPE. We would be putting a Status of the Document qualifier for both drafts, but Roy is right that the text I proposed there was more appropriate to the TCS document and we should differentiate. I think you're right that we could additionally note that non-normative text has been removed from this draft and may need to be re-introduced in subsequent documents. > I'm also not clear on the intent to restore some essential non-normative use case explanations. I think that is essential, as I said in my last message. Removing so much doesn't in my view add clarity to the reader, it confuses him or her … or at least me. We seem to have different views from different readers on this point. Personally, I suspect that ultimately we can add some non-normative text inline and some explanatory appendices. Thanks, Nick
Received on Friday, 26 April 2013 20:31:43 UTC