- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 01:29:46 -0400
- To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
On Jul 12, 2006, at 5:53 PM, David Orchard wrote: > I'm strongly against either: > - no examples I'm not against useful examples, i.e., examples that clarify or illustrate a tricky point. But what are these in this spec? Do you think the spec has too many examples, too few, or about right? Do you think there should be a running example? > - example for every feature/property/etc. > > Relevance is the important and useful part, not completeness. Did you mean "significance" or "utility"? Presumably every example is *relevant*, in the sense of being about the subject matter of the section in which it appears. > There may be some specese that we can do to call out the examples. In > all the xml spec that I've done, I used the <example> section to > identify examples. This sounds good, esp. if it has a distinctive rendering. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 13 July 2006 05:29:47 UTC