- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 11:19:56 -0600
- To: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
[...changed to www-qa-wg...] I need clarification. What is in the current text (2005/05/23, [1]) does not reflect my memory of our decisions, nor the minutes of 9 May telecon, from which I excerpt this discussion and its resolution: >[...] DH suggested that maybe some text should be added to the effect >that, when there is such a discrepancy on formal vs. prose, the WG should >publish >an erratum, but that it would be good to have an interim "tie-breaker" for the >reasons mentioned previously. KD stated that conflicts are not acceptable, >and publishing errata to resolve conflicts should be encouraged. TB raised >concern about conflict vs. error in this regard. LH likes the >wording from Al Gilman on this matter as a base, and then >add a sentence strongly recommending (in non-normative language) to publish >errata when inconsistencies of this nature arise. KD also suggested pointing >to the part of the W3C Process Document which addresses errata in this >sentence. > >ACTION: DM to take Al Gilman wording and add erratum recommendation sentence >(as described previously) by Wednesday. Al's wording was the compromise that allowed the WG to include a tie-breaker rule when it thought such was appropriate, but did not *require* it. Al reaffirms in his 1st message of today that such was okay: "Asserting a precedence that the development group genuinely believes in is fine. Requiring a precedence in the absence of that collective opinion is counter-productive." SUMMARY. We agreed with Al's wording, we resolved to put it in the spec, but we didn't do it. Am I missing something? -Lofton. At 06:15 PM 5/23/2005 +0200, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote: >Le lundi 23 mai 2005 à 12:03 -0400, Al Gilman a écrit : > > "Formal vs prose language normativity" > > > > .. for which the QA Working Group has failed to do due diligence to > > resolve the issue. > >I think it's unfair to say we have failed in this regard; my last post >on this was sent on Friday, and I'm still waiting for a reply from Ian >on the topic. > > > That is to say a phalanx of consistent comment from customers has been > > ignored, and the Working Group has left an ill-considered requirement > > in the document. > >Although I disagree the requirement is ill-considered, it seems pretty >clear to me that there is a lack of consensus on the matter, and I think >the WG should revisit its wording to allow for more flexibility on how >to deal with the perceived problem. Typically, instead of saying >"explain which takes precedence", we could simply say "there are often >extensive overalap between prose and formal language, so beware of any >discrepancies between them" or something like that. > >(I expect the QA WG will discuss this next week, although I won't attend >that call) > >Dom >-- >Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ >W3C/ERCIM >mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Monday, 23 May 2005 17:19:58 UTC