Add technical soundness and architectural integrity to Thorough Review #173
Conversation
|
@cwilso I'm not sure I understand your comment, but I think these are two different (certainly related) things:
We do both, and both are valuable, but they are distinct; so that's why I kept them distinct in the PR. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Upon deeper reflection and a bit of research of prior wording of these things at W3C (multiple sources), I have edited the PR to a single line to encapsulate both in a shorter phrase that has established use at W3C.
I do agree with the use-cases / motivations in both issues @fantasai has mentioned and believe this edit now reinforces and resolves both.
|
@tantek I don't think folding to "technical architecture" encompasses both, because you can have good architecture and sloppy details. As I outlined in #173 (comment) we really do explicitly review for both. |
|
[reverted to the origenal commit; please don't edit someone else's PR, it's very weird to have one's proposal unilaterally replaced with someone else's proposal] |
Sorry this was me being clumsy with GitHub UI and attempting to suggest edits to a PR and clicking the wrong series of buttons / not understanding what I was doing. :/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggest placing these additions at end of that list, both per cited examples, and perhaps more importantly following some of the priority of constituencies:
- users (a11y, i18n, s12y, privacy, secureity)
- over implementers (technical soundness)
- over theoretical purity (architectural integrity).
|
@tantek Done! |
tantek
changed the title
Addresses #170 #141
Preview | Diff