W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2000

Friendly Specs (was Re: Modularization of XHTML B.3.4.2)

From: Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 23:26:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <v04210108b515b02b5367@[]>
To: www-html@w3.org
Simon St.Laurent wrote:

>At 12:55 AM 4/8/00 +0200, Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
> >And if we all stop speaking in acronyms, and if the publisher of said
> >document would be kind enough to use correct publishing methods...
>"Correct publishing methods?"
>I'd appreciate it if the W3C specs were written in friendlier language, but

What kind of improvement would you and Jan Roland Eriksson like to 
see? Would you care to point out a good model?

I've always thought of W3C specifications as formal expositions, and 
in the interest of clarity for a worldwide audience, hoped they would 
exemplify "standard" rather than "colloquial" US English, as 
differentiated, for example, in the old standby high school textbook, 
_English Grammar and Composition_ by John Warriner (Amazon.com sales 
rank 75,933 at the time of this writing ;-).

Sorry if this would be better addressed on www-talk or another list. 
I recall discussing W3C style sheets on www-style, and the W3C home 
page on w3c-wai-gl.

Susan Lesch
Intern, W3C
Received on Sunday, 9 April 2000 03:24:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:20:39 UTC