[Cross-posting the comments below per Janina's thoughtful request.]

I concur with Janina's insightful remark [at the Indie-UI teleconference on
Thursday] that the "explainer" could evolve into a (potentially cross-group)
requirements document. This raises several issues.

1. Harmonization of terminology. We're already seeing differences between the
terminology used by WEB Apps in connection with editing and our own terms for
similar concepts, e.g., "abstract events" and "intentions". Naming conventions
for events aren't harmonized either.

2. Whether there should ultimately be one spec or several, and where the
division should lie, is obviously up for discussion. Given the progress we've
made to date, it makes good sense that support for interactive editing could
reside in its own spec, with its own development schedule. This, after all, is
work that we anticipated in Indie-UI but postponed.

3. If there are two or more specs to be produced in this area, we should
provide appropriate cross-references (perhaps a non-normative reference in
each spec to the requirements would be sufficient), so that user agent and Web
application implementors alike can readily appreciate the relationships
between the technologies described in the respective documents.

My main concern at this point is that the designs be consistent and
that terminology be unified wherever possible.

Reply via email to