- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 15:22:31 +0900
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
- Cc: spec-prod@w3.org, www-qa-wg@w3.org
I'm not sure I agree. Pubrules are hard and fast rules; if you don't follow them, publication is rejected. It should be kept as short as possible. The style guide is on a different level. It tries to help editors, and contains many things that may be obvious to people who are used to technical writing, and many things that one could also do another way, and where it is good to have some help, but if somebody has good reasons, they should be able to do things somewhat differently. The style guide is already long, and can get longer. Regards, Martin. At 09:56 02/03/01 -0500, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: >On Fri, Mar 01, 2002, Daniel Dardailler wrote: > > I don't think it's a good idea to have both > > http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules > > as a subset of > > http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/ > > > > This duplication will lead to confusion. > > > > I think we should only carry forward the second one, the Manual of > > Style, using a checkpoint layout with priorities 1, 2, 3 (much like > > the WAI guidelines), and assign P1 to pubrules checkpoints, with a > > policy enforcing level A. > >That looks a very reasonnable proposal. We'll have to think about the >process part of such a merge, since pubrules are a quite sensible >subject (changes must be approved by the team, announced to the chairs). > >Dom >-- >Dominique Haza$BuM(B-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ >W3C's Webmaster >mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Friday, 8 March 2002 01:22:39 UTC