Hi Olafur,
Thanks for the offer of text. Looking forward to getting that.
Just on this one though...
On 01/14/2013 10:29 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
That's also sort of like the point Stefan W. raised. And he
suggested:
"If the source code has been developed
independently of the authoring of the draft (and ideally by non
WG participants), it is likely that the implementation and the
draft match, and that pitfalls unaware developers may find have
been found and dealt with. If, on the other hand, draft
author(s) and implementation developer(s) overlap, then it is
sensible to scrutinize the draft more closely, both with
respect to its match with the implementation and for
assumptions that author/developer may have taken for granted
which warrant documentation in the draft."
Are you saying something like that would help?
I agree with Stefan W. but would make it stronger that implementation by
editors does not count except for interoperability testing.
Stephan W. also suggested that at first.
My concern is that this is too onerous during a 12 month experiment.
If we constrain it too much, then nobody will try it.
It could be that such constraints may be reasonable after a successful
experiment but I'm really wary of killing this before it starts
with too many pieces of well-meant advice or too many reasonable
sounding rules.
I'd have no problem adding an appendix with such ideas or putting
'em on the wiki page for the experiment though if that'd work.
Cheers,
S.