On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
The point is that if it's just a chapter in a larger spec, how do I
know that there isn't other important information in the larger spec
that I have to read in order to get a understanding of the full
feature.
The same
On Aug 22, 2011, at 11:47 , James Graham wrote:
I don't really understand your point here. If you used the smaller document
presumably you could just have easily have read the relevant chapter from the
larger document.
[...snip...]
Small specs encourage people - including the spec editors -
Le 22 août 2011 à 05:47, James Graham a écrit :
Small specs encourage people - including the spec editors - to perceive that
features are more self-contained than they really are
Note that in some circumstances it might have some benefits in forcing
orthogonality. Our tools and cultural
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:47 AM, James Graham jgra...@opera.com wrote:
On 08/22/2011 11:22 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete/
I *always* used the much smaller document that used to be available here:
On 08/22/2011 11:22 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete/
I *always* used the much smaller document that used to be available here:
www.whatwg.org/specs/web-workers/current-work/
I don't really understand your point here. If you used the smaller
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Adrian Bateman wrote:
At Microsoft, we also prefer smaller more specific specifications for
all the same reasons that it makes sense to engineer software in
smaller, more modular parts.
* It is easier to implement and test smaller modules. Developers find it
easier
On Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:29 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
[ Topic changed to how to organize the group's DOM specs ... ]
Hi Adrian, Anne, Doug, Jacob, All,
The WG is chartered to do maintenance on the DOM specs so a question for
us is how to organize the DOM specs, in particular, whether
