- From: James Fuller <jim@webcomposite.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 18:05:43 +0200
- To: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
- Cc: XProc WG <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Hello Alex, Perhaps this was a discussion I missed but it was my understanding that a) we are creating a new requirements document b) this document refers back to original requirement v1 document as well as a 'report card' of how well those requirements were fulfilled by v1.0 (the doc which now contains use cases and examples) If you are proposing to publish the 'report card' as a Note, I think that is a good thing though that still doesn't mean we avoid a requirements v2 doc … which will need to refer to requirements v1 and non normative 'report card'. I dont think I am misunderstanding you, but I guess I may not be aware/see adminstratita, J On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com> wrote: > I have been thinking about our previous requirements document. I think > we should refactor our requirements to a new set that make sense going > forward. We have a different group of people than where we started. > I think we can cover what we accomplished in 1.0 with different > wording of requirements without losing their value. > > One way forward is to publish a simple note that includes the > "solutions" that we've already provided for the 1.0 requirements. > Then we can reference that in a new requirements document. > Meanwhile, we can refactor the 1.0 requirements into a more cohesive > set. > > I personally think that would be easier overall but make some editing work now. > > -- > --Alex Milowski > "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the > inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language > considered." > > Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics >
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 16:06:10 UTC