On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Shannon wrote:
> >
> > I just merged the non-obvious ones into the text and removed the
> > obvious ones.
>
> Merging pros and cons into the opening paragraph is a poor design
> choice. It makes it more difficult for contributers to flesh out each
> point without breaking p
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Shannon wrote:
I would like to restore the pros and cons.
I just merged the non-obvious ones into the text and removed the obvious
ones.
Merging pros and cons into the opening paragraph is a poor design
choice. It makes it more difficult for co
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Shannon wrote:
>
> I would like to restore the pros and cons.
I just merged the non-obvious ones into the text and removed the obvious
ones. (Saying "Con: Proposal may be more complex" isn't helpful.) I don't
think I removed any non-trivial ones, which ones did you have in m
I would like to restore the pros and cons. Although they are not as
consise as you would like there was still a considerable amount of time
put into them and they do reflect the arguments put forward on both
sides of the RDF discussions. You are asking for more detail and then
removing the deta
I happened to look over this page just now:
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Generic_Metadata_Mechanisms
Here is some feedback:
1.1 What is the problem we are trying to solve?
The problem description isn't a problem description, it's a series of
requirements.
For example, the first sentence ("
