[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Clear specs: suggestions
It's been educational, not to say entertaining, to have read the firestorm of opinion over the last week. (Ron Bourret's recent posts on suggestions for clarifying the Namespaces in XML spec, and contrasting it with XML 1.0's, was especially well-done and much appreciated.) I thought of a couple things the W3C might do to help ensure the quality of standards *documents* (vs. the quality of the standards-behind-the-documents). Both of these suggestions would apply only to documents at the WD or later stage -- NOTEs would be exempt. (1) Templates (or at least, guidelines): This seems so obvious that I can't believe it's not already being done; a few comments in the last week imply, however, that each WG sort of goes about the preparation of the document with its own ideas, more or less, of what a spec should look like and how much detail it should contain. I'm thinking here of DTDs for WDs, PRs, and RECs. The content model for the WD level might contain elements like "openissue" that would be absent from the latter two levels -- or relegated to "for future consideration" appendices. I really liked the approach suggested by Ron (I think; apologies if I'm either misattributing the idea or misrepresenting Ron) -- formalism, narrative, examples. That suggests the main content model for each topic and sub-topic in a spec. (2) Establish editorial-review committees at least at the level of the W3C's four "domains": User Interface, Technology & Society, Architecture, and the Web Accessibility Initiative. (Depending on resource requirements and availability, this might better be pushed down to the level of individual activities within those domains.) Because these committees would be familiar with the broad issues as well as, perhaps, some of the details, but not involved at the nitty-gritty level of thinking of the spec writers, I'd think they'd be good stand-ins for the target audience(s). In order not to bog down the drafting process, a given spec's editorial review might be required no sooner than the transition to PR, but definitely before becoming a REC. My apologies if I'm speaking out of turn here. I'm not a member (nor is my employer) of the W3C; these just seemed to be two reasonable, non-onerous approaches to ensuring clarity and consistency in published specs. Best, JES ============================================================= John E. Simpson | It's no disgrace t'be poor, simpson@p... | but it might as well be. | -- "Kin" Hubbard xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|