W3C Vision needs adversarial reading analyses

[tantek]

Quoting from this comment on issue 113 to separate this into its own issue:

…we need to do an adversarial reading of the document, to anticipate how it will be understood and misunderstood by people outside the consortium -- especially those who may not be predisposed to be 'on board' with what we do.

This will likely require a section by section reading, and filing new specific issues per potential misunderstanding to consider how and if there is way to mitigate such potential misunderstandings. Such new issues should cite this issue and then we can make closing this issue dependent on closing all such specific issues.

We may want to consider a list of checkboxes in this issue to track completion of such adversarial reading analyses section by section.

(Originally published at: https://tantek.com/2024/269/b1/)

[mgendler]

Given that we have had wide review, and many of the folks involved have been particularly detailed, I would consider this not a blocker for moving ahead. I would say that we do not need to close this, as it should remain an open issue for Vision 2.0 work in the future.