Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Specification review for fenced frames (Issue #838)

Hi there. Just to reiterate @torgo's last point - I've found it challenging to review this across an 12 page, very detailed technical explainer. While this is great documentation, it isn't really in the spirit of the purpose that [TAG explainers](https://github.com/w3ctag/tag.w3.org/blob/main/explainers/index.md) need to serve. I have the impression there is a lot of context shared between the people who are working on this day-to-day that I'm missing due to not having a lot of exposure to or a deep understanding of the work, so it's hard for me to know which parts to focus on.

Please could you provide a one-pager primer or overview, and take note of our [tips on how to write effective explainers](https://github.com/w3ctag/tag.w3.org/blob/main/explainers/index.md#tips-for-effective-explainers)? This can of course link out to more detail, but the key points should be captured a single document.

A smaller point - FLEDGE, Turtledove and Protected Audience are used interchangeably throughout. I understand that these are all effectively the same thing? It would also be helpful if you could improve consistency here.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/838#issuecomment-1629384878
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/838/1629384878@github.com>