Robert Sayre wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
At this point, small surgical changes to address specific concerns may (or may not) be acceptable. Wholesale changes with little rationale are less likely to be so.
Well, who really cares anyway. I'll get the draft ready. Nobody propose any 'wholesale changes' in the meantime, OK?
I don't know about you, but I do care.
Whether it is for accessibility, or for general usability, I want to ensure that every entry has a textual, non-remote component to it.
You have made a number of noises that it is your intent to use last call as your opportunity to challenge the working group to revisit this.
Please don't.
If you truly are concerned about co-occurrence constraints, recast the grammar so that content and summary are the same element, possibly with multipart alternatives. See if you can come up with a less hideous syntax than either 0.3 or -07. Make this element mandatory, and I'm happy.
If your real goal, however, is to make textual non-remote information optional, please don't.
- Sam Ruby
