touch upon EEA paperwork
Please use the Contact Type on this web site to offer feedback on EEA Specs together with Evaluation Drafts and Editor’s Drafts, and different paperwork supplied by way of this web site.
Please determine the particular model of specs and paperwork that present such info, e.g. “EthTrust Safety Ranges, Editor’s draft, 14 July 2032” or “EEA primer ‘Introduction to DAOs veersion 7′”, within the topic discipline, to ensdure the suggestions is efficeintly delivered to the related Group or employees member.
Producing useful suggestions
Useful suggestions on specs identifies
the related half(s) of the specification. EEA specs revealed as HTML typically have part markers (“§”) which might be a hyperlink to the related part. Quoting that hyperlink is useful, along with noting the part title and quantity.
the issue with the present textual content, or the addition prompt. Whereas it’s useful to determine motion that might resolve the difficulty, it is very important clarify the issue because the Working Group might resolve a unique decision is extra applicable.
Suggestions that implies using a unique definition, a change or enchancment to grammar, a damaged hyperlink, or the like, is finest recognized as “Editorial”. Please notice that the editor(s) of any specification, on the path of the related Working Group, take duty for choices on writing type.
Suggestions that identifies an issue with the content material itself, equivalent to noting an erroroneous assertion, or a suggestion {that a} specification ought to embrace content material it doesn’t presently handle, is substantive and shall be thought-about by the Working Group as a complete. The Working Group would possibly ask for additional clarification to assist it resolve the difficulty appropriately.
Good Suggestions would possibly appear to be:
Part B.6 (vii) “Attention-grabbing Fruit” of the 14 January Editor’s Draft of “Lunch concepts” <https://entethalliance.org/specs/drafts/2028-01-14-Lunch/#sec-interesting-fruit> incorporates Editorial and Substantive errors:
Substantive: It fails to say donuts, and it contains persimmons however they aren’t attention-grabbing
Editorial: The widespread spelling is “donuts”, not “dough-nuts”. The spelling used will confuse the worldwide viewers of this specification.
Editorial: Using double- and triple-negatives and never writing in a approach that doesn’t use passive voice will not be conducive to straightforward understanding. Please think about rephrasing this.
Nevertheless suggestions equivalent to
The specification takes the unsuitable strategy, as a result of it doesn’t handle the concepts of Shevchenko on Mishima’s later works correctly.
Is troublesome to course of. Whereas it means that one thing is lacking, it fails to elucidate what that’s (which concepts of Shevchenko?), nor give an understanding of the way it may very well be fastened. Additional, it doesn’t determine in any approach which elements of the specification are problematic.
