Re: Question on bug 15

I've heard so many people (at interops, at meetings, readers of my 
book) complain about the confusion of the "success condition" wording 
that I'd love to do something about that if we can.  Unfortunately it 
seems we designed something which made sense only to people involved in 
the design.  First time readers are particularly confused and I think 
it takes a while for them to get it (if ever).  Is there anything we 
can do about that?

Will any of those people who spoke to me, or others, about the 
confusion of this design, speak up now if you're following the list?

Lisa

On Nov 23, 2005, at 10:05 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

>
>
> I am going to call consensus on this one in a week so give me your 
> input
> before then....
>
> The basic issue is that the names are sort of reverse what people think
> because they are based on post conditions. ACL (and others) already 
> exists
> and do it the reverse way. The question is we should we define future 
> stuff
> in the "forward" way...
>
> Proposal 1: Stay consistent with ACL - put in note for implementers 
> that
> points out this is reverse of what they might expect.
>
> Proposal 2: Switch the way we do it. Leave old document reverse and 
> make new
> documents forward.
>
>
> Pros/Cons - It is a questions of it having both reverse and forward 
> will be
> more or less confusing to implementers that just having it all reverse.
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2005 20:24:28 UTC