> (6) Rewrote the "Availabilty Specification Guidance" to give a better ... > ... Its hard for me as a non-native > speaker to write in the "specification style".
1: It's nearly as hard for native speakers. 2: Most readers would consider this a feature, not a bug - they'll prefer readability. Guidance is supposed to be read by humans, IMO, since (as we use the term in OSLC) it means "non-normative" which is just academic-speak for "it's not a spec". Assumption: "most readers" are implementing clients. Normative specs are typically written primarily for server implementers. The dynamics of that social system tends to lead toward a result that resembles a legal document more than normal text, because it's trying to impose a binary result (does my server comply or not) on the real world (which is rarely binary). That's why "mere mortals" usually can't read specs easily. Well, that along with "compliance != usefulness", where != is the "not always equal" operator. Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Cloud and Smarter Infrastructure OSLC Lead
