WSP Wants Contributions For "Standards Glossary"
Wednesday September 1st, 1999
Stephan Nedregaard, leader of the Developer Educations Committee at the Web Standards Project, writes in with this news:
"As some of you might already know, the overall project of the WSP-DEC is to make documents aimed at facilitating the adoption of Web standards by Web developers.
Our current project, the Standards glossary, aims at defining terms found in W3C and ECMA standard specifications, to make it easier for Web developers to read and understand those. We're now going public with this project hoping to get contributions from the Web developer community in general.
We hope that you will take time to go to the glossary website and submit terms you find yourself qualified to write something about.
If you wish to know more about or join the Developer Educations Committee, please visit our Web pages."
#1 WSP Wants Contributions For "Standards Glossa
Wednesday September 1st, 1999 4:03 PM
We'd love to hear your comments.
The w3c has some definitions of its own:
#3 See also...
Thursday September 2nd, 1999 5:06 AM
Not exactly what we're trying to do, though!
The W3C document says they want to "establish a shared understanding of key Web concepts"
What we're aiming at is a document explaining "How to read/understand W3C/ECMA specs", to make it easier to support Web standard specifications.
Ironically, the title of the W3C document and Working Group you refered to probably should be explained in our glossary.
#4 Regarding specification ofW3C Recommendations
Thursday September 2nd, 1999 10:19 AM
Definitions of terms such as XHTML or XML (W3C Specs/Working Drafts), the only thing to be mentioned is A) That it is a W3C Rec/Working Draft -- B) A link to that Rec/WD should be included -- C) If it is mentioned in "What are Web standards and why should I use them" ( <http://www.uio.no/~stephann/faq.html> ) provide a link to the relevant paragraph on that page.
For an example, look at Julian Missigs suggestion for 'XHTML'.
#5 I think the lack of responses may be a good sign.
Thursday September 2nd, 1999 1:10 PM
I think this is a great idea, and well executed. Don't be discouraged by the lack of responses here, though. If people thought it was done poorly, you'd certainly be hearing about it.
What I'd like to see is a definition of "reference implementation".
Friday September 3rd, 1999 1:06 PM
ha ha ha :) Feel free to define it...
"A mythical software product which actually supports 100% of a given standard. See also: mozilla"