Well, Peter, no, I haven't written something this direct - yet. My trust in
their responsiveness is at an ebb; they don't answer much communication, of
any nature, quickly, so I doubt that they will answer a more critical email
at all.

FWIW I consider all of the editors to be way more experienced than me, when
it comes to documents, and publishing, and so forth. I don't equate that
with expertise in math, or programming, or technical writing. Number one,
trained technical writers should write technical docs - a whole bunch of W3C
recommendations prove that. _I_ am not very good at writing technical docs;
I get windy and abstruse. That's why I don't get paid to write docs. :-)

Every XSL-FO implementation has a different treatment of
"reference-orientation". I keep harping on this, I know. In fact, I think
_my_ interpretation is correct, and almost everyone else is wrong. I think
that because I read the English in the spec. I know that sounds arrogant,
but I have told the editors before that I'll implement according to the
letter, not the spirit. If they wish to argue that the language says
differently than what I think, that's their prerogative.

There is a better procedure for turning out specs. The W3C hasn't twigged.
Good companies in the industry already know it. It's invite the
customers/clients in, get them to hash things out with the programmers and
technical writers, and then let the latter two groups turn out a good
document, or a good implementation. Or both. In this case the experts are
the customers; we have a confused spec because they thought they were the
programmers and writers as well.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: February 22, 2003 8:23 AM
> Subject: Re: Markers in areas
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> > They are not connected concepts, Mark. I originally put in the code for
> > lineage pairs, and also started the implementation for markers. So I can
> > assure you that they are completely unrelated. For what it's worth,
> > subsequent contributors have significantly improved on marker
> support, so I
> > am only commenting from the viewpoint of my knowledge of the spec.
> >
> > I made a few comments in my reply to Joerg. I have a degree in
> physics, and
> > most of a Masters in physical oceanography. I see considerable
> mathematical
> > anarchy in the XSL spec, some degree of mathematical naivete,
> and lots of
> > confusion. My forte is not logic, based on my background, but
> even a physics
> > guy can dissect the pseudo-logic in that spec. I think plenty of other
> > people have also separated the wheat from the chaff as far as
> that document
> > is concerned...I think we are due for a rewrite, with lots of the
> > pretentious math excised, and replaced with plain language.
> Arved,
> Hear, hear.  Arved, have you told the editors this directly?  If not,
> please do.
> --
> Peter B. West  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/
> "Lord, to whom shall we go?"
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to