- From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:59:05 -0800
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- CC: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Either of these proposed solutions would resolve my comment. I do think it is very nice to have an informative summary with links to the normative text, but do worry about it staying up to date in the future. Steve Zilles > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Lilley [mailto:chris@w3.org] > Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 6:44 AM > To: Stephen Zilles > Cc: www-font@w3.org > Subject: Re: Comments on the WOFF Last Call > > On Wednesday, January 5, 2011, 6:35:22 PM, Stephen wrote: > > > SZ> 4. It seems to be a bad practice to have two places where > SZ> conformance requirements are stated: in the normative text and in > SZ> the Summary of Conformance Requirements, perhaps one of these > SZ> should be described as informative and linked to the other. > > We agree and are discussing several ways to resolve this. > > One way, as you say, is to mark the appendix as informative and to link > each requirement in the appendix to its defining instance in the normative > prose. > > Another option is to remove the appendix completely, if it adds no real > value. > > > -- > Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain > W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead > Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG > Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 18:59:43 UTC