Re: Architecture doc

Tim, Thanks for your feedback, in this message and in
the meeting today.  I'd like to re-emphasize that this
document is more of a play space than a working document
in the normal W3C sense; that pointers from this document to not indicate
the material is to be incorporated as is; only that it is good
reading material for homework for anyone working in the


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Bray" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 2:31 PM
Subject: Architecture doc

> I refer to the latest version of the architecture doc at
> 1. Versioning
> The first problem is that this thing isn't dated or versioned so
> there's no way to be sure that the version I'm talking about is
> the one you're reading; I assume this can be fixed per normal
> W3C pubstyle.

The version was at the bottom, now at the top.

> 2. Addressing
> This thing needs anchors or a numbered outline or whatever
> so we can talk about pieces of it.

I have tried to introduce consistency in numbering subsections.  I am sorry
that HTML does not give me the ability to numebr the sections - I guess CSS2

> 3. Structure/Outline
> I still feel about as I did in our face-to-face.  The
> general outline and structure are reasonable.  I think that
> the first two sections are much stronger then the second
> two, as evidenced by the fact that I think all our issues
> to date go in the first two and none in the second two.
> BTW, I think someone has an action item to place some
> more of our issues in-line?
> 4. TimBL's Design Issues series
> We need to as a group develop consensus as to which of
> these should be linked to.  For example, I thought the
> material in the "Axioms of" and "The Myth of" docs was
> appropriate and probably not controversial and deserves
> to be in this; on the other hand I had real problems with
> some of "Generic resources" and am not sure it belongs.
> Also I'm not sure Tim's writing/presentation style are
> optimal for something occupying this central a position -
> probably they should be regularized into something closer
> to a standard TAG pubstyle.
> 5. Consensus
> I think we all should take responsibility for examining
> this thing pretty closely so that we can be sure that
> it represents TAG consensus except where otherwise
> labeled.
>   -Tim

Received on Monday, 4 March 2002 16:16:36 UTC