Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Keyword Behaviors - assumptions of knowledge is too high #635

Open
Relequestual opened this issue Jul 11, 2018 · 3 comments
Open

Keyword Behaviors - assumptions of knowledge is too high #635

Relequestual opened this issue Jul 11, 2018 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
clarification Items that need to be clarified in the specification core
Milestone

Comments

@Relequestual
Copy link
Member

Relequestual commented Jul 11, 2018

Based on discussion on slack, @handrews suggested I post an issue relating to section 3.1 Keyword Behaviours.

I believe I understood the principals explained correctly, however I feel this may have been because I've been following developments and have a reasonable understanding. Regardless, I still had to read it 4 times to be sure it made sense.

I feel the order of these sections doesn't make sense.
Section 3.1.2 (Default Behaviors) is really hard to understand because the application isn't clear till you've read the introduction to keyword categories. Chainging the order of this so that 3.1.2 appears after keyword categories would make the application clearer.

Additionally, the phrase "extension keywords" is used, but it's never explained what this means.

Section 3.1.2 (Default Behaviors) also feels a little waffly. In my mind (and I assume other readers), I try to whittle down the paragraphs to a few main points that are trying to be communicated, and I can't seem to focus on the core concepts. Personally, I would suggest to consider making a list of things you want to communicate, then reduce anything which doesn't contribute to that aim.
Less is more in this case, I feel.

(Also, more paragraphs. The human brain's ability to comphrehend generally reduces after 4 lines of text. Most of the spec is pretty good with sticking to this, aiming for 3 lines!)

@Relequestual
Copy link
Member Author

I feel it makes sense to defer this to draft-9.
We want to get draft-8 out, and the correct intent is there, but some reordering or rephrasing would help things. Even so, this issue shouldn't be a blocker for draft-8.

@Relequestual Relequestual modified the milestones: draft-08, draft-09 Jun 17, 2019
@handrews
Copy link
Contributor

@Relequestual given the various reworkings of draft-08, is this still a problem?

@Relequestual
Copy link
Member Author

I'd like to save reviewing this issue till you're done making changes and we go into the review period again for draft-8. I'm too stretched with talk prep to get stuck into this atm.

@gregsdennis gregsdennis added clarification Items that need to be clarified in the specification and removed feedback labels Jul 17, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
clarification Items that need to be clarified in the specification core
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants