- From: <scott_boag@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 07:40:04 -0400
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com>, spec-prod@w3.org, w3c-query-editors@w3.org, w3c-query-editors-request@w3.org, www-qa@w3.org
> In my experience the human-readability of a spec > is an important factor in its successful uptake by the community. I don't think it's totally either one or the other. And most specs are better anyway if they are declarative, in my experience. Also, there is the path that Schema took, which is to provide a tutorial. > I'm not sure it merits immediate adoption. It depends on what baby steps may be taken. I believe a large amount of work lies in wait for the creation of test suites for XPath 2.0/XQuery 1.0/XSLT 2.0. We may be able to save a lot of person hours by taking some simple markup steps now. -scott Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com To: scott_boag@us.ibm.com > cc: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com>, Sent by: spec-prod@w3.org, w3c-query-editors@w3.org, www-qa@w3.org, (bcc: Scott w3c-query-editors-req Boag/Cambridge/IBM) uest@w3.org Subject: Re: Testable assertion tagging for W3C specifications 05/09/2002 01:39 PM scott_boag@us.ibm.com wrote: > Too often we think > of the specification as prose. What it really must be is This is a strong assertion that may be true but probably requires some supporting evidence. In my experience the human-readability of a spec is an important factor in its successful uptake by the community. XML 1.0 is admittedly a counter-example, but should I ever undertake another large-scale core-technology spec editing assignment, I'd put a lot more energy into the prose. Having said all that, the testable-assertions hypothesis probably merits serious investigation. I'm not sure it merits immediate adoption. -Tim
Received on Friday, 10 May 2002 07:49:45 UTC