Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Doug Schepers wrote:
But I thought it was important that readers get an understanding
of the scope of the technology, and not be bogged down in seeming
contradictions.
I honestly don't think this will really bog anyone down.
You may be right. Let's hope so.
Besides your version sounding much more marketting-y and longer, I
don't see that it's especially better.
Naturally, you already understand what XBL is for, but you aren't your
audience.
My concern with your proposed text was with its use of hype terms and its
length, it was not an issue with its content per se.
I have no idea what you mean. What "hype terms"?
I don't care about the length or the actual wording. I just want the
abstract to be accurate and reasonably comprehensive. I don't think
that the current version is. Maybe others do.
If someone proposes an abstract that is more accurate and comprehensive
than the current text without hype, without being too long, and without
focusing on inconsequential details, I'd be glad to use the text. The
current abstract is the result of many years of comments being taken into
account and I therefore do not feel it should be changed lightly.
Well, I'm too prolix, true. But I hoped that you would take
constructive criticism more seriously and improve the readability of the
spec.
--
Regards-
-Doug
Research and Standards Engineer
6th Sense Analytics
www.6thsenseanalytics.com
mobile: 919.824.5482
