- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:50:05 +0800
- To: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
(12/06/15 3:34), François REMY wrote: > | On the other hand, I don't know if the WG or W3C allows this, but a way > | to move this forward without disturbing the editor seems to be to ask > | Brian and folks to fork the spec into a tutorial-like Web developer > | version, where the terminology can be tweaked to make sure the least > | people are "confused". > > I think it will just add to the confusion. Let's keep one specification, > one name for a single feature. > > If the spec editor dislike a proposal so much it don't want to maintain > the spec if the change is done, we've got a problem we need to address > another way than to fork a specification. I'm admirative of Tab's work > and I seriously don't think he would refuse a change if it was accepted > by the majority as a better idea. The reason I am mentioning this is that the editor has a lot more technical issues he needs to resolve. Asking him to do a global s/variable/user-defined property/ replace to the spec at this point is perhaps a burden to him, while other people can contribute this by constantly tweaking the terminology at their place to see what's more of an acceptable/least-confusing one. But as I said, if the editor is willing to do this replace now, that's fine by me too. I just hope we don't spend too much time debating editorial matters. Cheers, Kenny
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 19:50:32 UTC