Re: Comments on Manual of Style

Daniel Dardailler wrote:

> http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/
> 
> I still don't like the fact that this document is a superset of
> pubrules, as this kind of duplication may lead to inconsistencies and
> two different standards to end up with.


Your timing is great. Susan Lesch and I discussed this yesterday.
Here is our plan, to be executed as soon as we have time:

  - No rules in pubrules will appear in the manual of style.
    There will be links from the m.o.s. to pubrules.

  - There will be no notion of conformance to the m.o.s. We will
    replace things like "You must have correct spelling" with
    "Spell-check your document."

Why no notion of conformance? There's no prize or penalty for
conforming! We'll just say what good things to do are.

  - Ian

 
> 
> The rest is less important:
>  I think it'd be better to put all the copyright/ipr in one section
>  instead of two as now.
> 
>  You should refer to this doc instead of the odoriferous css as a good 
>  example (and maybe making it a note).
> 
>  You should add a direct link to a list of authoring tools that
>  support XMLspec (free or commercial).
> 
>  
> Where is the Manual Of Style linked from ?


  - Top of pubrules

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 08:27:25 UTC