Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Richard Anderson" <email@example.com>
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:04:18 -0000
In terms of standards, am I right or wrong in thinking that DCD replaced
Also, is DCD being replaced by something else ? I remember reading or
hearing something but I cant remember what.
* E-Mail mailto:RJA@arpsolutions.demon.co.uk *
* WEB http://www.arpsolutions.demon.co.uk *
From: Buss, Jason A <email@example.com>
To: 'firstname.lastname@example.org' <email@example.com>
Date: 8 February 1999 22:38
Subject: RE: "Clean Specs"
>>Perhaps in this modern world, some of the rather large fees charged
>>by W3C for membership could go towards hiring some technical writers
>>to address this issue. IMNSHO, the amount of time that we've all
>>spent thrashing about with namespaces is an example of intelligence,
>>time and energy that could have been avoided by a standard that
>>addressed some of the issues better.
>>If standards are the way we'll do business (and I'm all for that!)
>>then why not invest in the best possible standards up front? Just
>>because IETF and other traditions made do without, doesn't mean that
>>we should be penny wise and pound foolish now. Clarity is a net gain
>>for W3C members, and for the larger community, as the cost of
>>incompatible implementations is significant.
>At 5:40 PM -0600 2/7/99, W. Eliot Kimber wrote:
>> The XML WG was an all-volunteer project, as are most standards efforts.
>> Those of us who participated did so primarily as a personal commitment,
>> as something our employers (those of us who have them) pay us to do.
>> Standards development is not a commercial process--there is no budget
>> which technical writers might be hired. The W3C only administers, it
>> not fund. Same for ISO. Some national bodies do fund some standards
>> development (BSI, the British Standards Institute), but that funding will
>> tend to be used to support the technologists developing the standard and
>> not writers crafting the words.
>> So while it's true that most, if not all, specifications could benefit
> > professional writers, it usually isn't an option for standards
>> > Well, has anyone considered employing real, professional technical
>> > authors to write the specifications?
> >As chair of the DOM WG, I (and I think the editors of the specs)
> >would be overjoyed were someone to volunteer the services of a
> >real, professional technical author who could help in the process
> >getting good specs out the door. However, as has been pointed out
> >by others on this list, this support is difficult to find, as W3C
> >seldom has these resources available.
> Maybe it is time some of us who have been "put off" by the way the
>Namespaces recommendation to offer our services, under the auspices of the
>WG for XML and XML related standards, to go through and annotate the drafts
>and recommendations, as they come up for the vote.
> I didn't have trouble with the XML recommendation or the XSL working
>draft. The DOM took me a couple of reads, and I have read the namespaces
>recommendation 3 times and still have some questions, but I am looking here
>and other places to find the answers before I climb up in here and get all
>surly with the spec writers.
> I know there are a number of people who have read the spec and are
>upset with the concept of namespaces. I am still trying to grasp parts of
>it myself. But I think a lot of this is because I am a technical writer by
>trade. I prepare documents for the end-user. I am conditioned to write
>things from the perspective of the person actually utilizing the documents;
>I still wince at typos. If I hadn't had the background in SGML that I
>I would have been lucky to get past the XML spec itself.
> IMHO, if the working groups would like to see the services of
>technical writers utilized, they should probably just come forward and ask.
>I imagine through the W3C site or something. I think I have seen postings
>from Paul saying he had been working on annotated versions of the
>recommendations. If tech writers would like to see this, and it appears
>that the WG's would appreciate the help, I don't see why efforts could be
>made towards this. I know I would probably take up the opportunity to do
>such work, even if it is on a voluntary basis. Even if some don't have the
>time, surely someone would even a small amount of time to analyze and make
>some notes, so if someone becomes available, they could come in with
>something to start from. Even if it took a series of writers throughout
>development process, the outcome would likely justify the effort.
> Any suggestions? comments?
>Jason A. Buss
>Single Engine Technical Publications
>Cessna Aircraft Co.
>"I don't have your solution, but I do admire your problem..."
>xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
>Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on
>To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
>To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following
>List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)