On 4/8/07, Tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for the response
> Instead, I'm re-organizing them as issues,
I don't understand. Are you asserting that my requirements are
"issues" in the standard software engineering sense (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issue_%28computers%29 and http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requirement, or are you simply using different
terminology?
Requirements emerge from iterating over the process we've outlined. Top down
assertions can be integrated into the process by being treated as issues, as
they are in other standards processes. My usage of issues is related to the
TAG findings: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html .
I think at this point you have to support your assertion that the
"strawman" citation microformat on the Wiki satisfies my
requirements; alternatively, you can argue that my requirement is
either unfulfillable or not important, or that you just don't want to
debate the issue and I should go away (in which case, we'll simply
continue independently or push for DC adoption).
Microformats standards follow the process (
http://www.microformats.org/wiki/process ). All of the actions you suggest
are subject to that process. The best way to do that is to phrase them as
questions that can be answered by applying them to real world examples. I
look forward to continued feedback from interested parties, including you.
I hope that clears things up a bit.
-Ben
_______________________________________________
microformats-new mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
