- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 02:06:34 +0000 (UTC)
- To: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, fantasai wrote: >> >> Changing it just in one place would be more confusing, we think (using two >> terms for one concept), and changing it in multiple places would make the >> text a lot harder to read, we think (and this text is already quite >> verbose enough as it is). >> >> Since the first occurance of clearance links straight to the definition, >> we really don't see that it is much of a problem. > > I think just changing the first occurance of the term in that section > should be sufficient. Traversing links just to get that much of a clue > seems a bit awkward. The group did discuss that possibility but the concensus was that using a different term just for the first occurance would cause at least as much confusion. In any case, the rules aren't going to make that much sense unless you know more about clearance than just what area of the spec it is related to. Readers should just jump forward, read 9.5.2, and come back. :-) -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL U+1047E /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2004 21:06:36 UTC