Re: [tag-discuss] Keep It Simple: some options

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

On 07/12/06, Serm Kulvatunyou <serm@nist.gov> wrote:

> IMHO, I think if this TC were to create a guideline, it should be more
> grounded and more concise than [1] (focuses on TA).

I'd hope for that anyway? A pragmatic document rather than ivory tower output.
E.g. informative sections quoting existing specs and how they might
be re-worded to make them more verifiable.


 And one way I can think
> of is to ground (and scope) it based on a data structure/model.
(I interpret this in terms of db or java data structure)

>There for I
> think that this TC should definitely propose a mark up.
(Which I interpret as XML)

which is intended please?


I think the data
> model should be drafted first b/c it will serve as a central point of
> discussion and the driver for the guideline.

I strongly disagree with this. Cart before the horse issues?
Give me a model, then we'll decide what its modelling?
It sounds wrong to me.

If a fairly concise model arises then perhaps an informative section
could add it for consideration, but I'm against a dfinitive schema
in an initial issue.

>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/


regards
-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk