- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:55:53 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Robin Berjon wrote: >>You can find all sorts of practices good and bad in any number of other >>specifications, however I fail to see how this is germane to the topic, >>unless you would be so kind as to explain in which way the >>WD-SVGMobile12-20050413 is a paragon of virtue in specification writing. > > Craig referred to it as counter example in some comments and I just > observe inconsistency between the comment and common practise of the > SVG Working Group, so I assume I might be misunderstanding the comment > and seek clarification. I am commenting in my own name and not on behalf the SVG Working Group. What the SVG Working Group does or does not do is none of my immediate concern. > I don't think that can be helped then, any specification that gets > revised after smaller parts of it have advanced in some sense will > face this problem and obfuscating the notes or removing them does > not really remove confusion in my opinion, the goals of the document > and it's relationship to other work is explained in the first parts > of the document. I assume then that one can only accept confusion as being a natural part of specifications, at least when timely release is desire. I am not satisfied with this situation, but let it not keep you from advancing to CR. -- Robin Berjon Senior Research Scientist Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2005 14:56:13 UTC