Re: mode of examples [imperative?] and plain-ish English vs. spec-ese

Al Gilman wrote:
> >Cynthia,
> >
> >Section 3 says that for each checkpoint there are:
> >
> >  "Optional informative notes, clarifying examples,
> >   and cross references to related guidelines or checkpoints. "
> >
> >The "informative" is supposed to distribute to the whole sentence.
> >
> 
> Yeah, but out here amung us good ol' boys, it don't.  So this sentence
> doesn't get the point across for an important segment of our intended
> audience.
> 
> Usage:  'optional' is what you tell the guidelines author, not the
> guidelines reader, about the material that may or may not be there in the
> document in addition to the core guideline.  It is confusing here.  Better
> to use 'may' in describing the on-again, off-again presence of the
> elaborations.  The term 'optional' in the guidelines should be reserved to
> substructures or propositions which may or may not be present or true at
> the _content provider's option_.
> 
> Besides, the cross references are a mixed bag of normative and
> non-normative references.  So if the 'informative' is supposed to be
> interpreted with an ISO geek hat on, then the quote as presently stated is
> broken.

Yes, I agree. I think this needs to be fixed in all three Guidelines.

 - Ian
 
> 'illustrative' examples is the best plain English I know for what is
> intended here.  That is, best on a balanced evaluation both for actually
> meaning what is intended and meaning that to the broadest readership.
> 
> Al
> 
> > - Ian
> >
> >--
> >Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> >Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
> >Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
> >

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Monday, 24 April 2000 15:10:52 UTC