citation issues was: process,
[citation] (was Re: [uf-new] announcing the hOCR and hBIB
bewest at gmail.com
Sun Apr 8 19:20:20 PDT 2007
On 4/8/07, Tom <tmbdev at gmail.com> 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
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.
More information about the microformats-new