> Thanks, but the announcement was a bit cryptic. I assume you want 
> people other than those who wrote the document to comment on it and so 
> you need to tell us what it is and why we should read it.
>
Ah, well I tried to do that, but I guess I failed

> As it is, even after clicking on the link I still couldn't quite work 
> out what the document is about. You might want to separate the content 
> into a short technical specification and a longer explanatory document.
>
Yes, well, hear I have another broader problem - How to follow W3C 
Publication rules and make it easy to read.
A  second document or guide is a possible  way forward. However it will 
make sense to write that after we have written the technical document.

Strangely enough some people find the technical document easier to read 
then a more simple one...

It may be also a fact, at least for the technical specification, that a 
broad understanding of XHTML, DHTML (dynamic content) , widget use and 
authoring, as well as to some extent Accessibility API's , and RDF 
(semantic web) are required to find it easy going. However , at least 
in  the technical specifications, it should be enough to recommend and 
link to these dependent concepts

>
> pps: But then perhaps I am just not very bright. I have a student who 
> says they can build an e-archive using the semantic web for the 
> museums of the South Pacific <http://www.tomw.net.au/2005/emuseums/>. 
> They have discovered the hard part is not building the archive, but 
> explaining what the semantic web is.  ;-)
>
Yes I know the feeling


All the best
Lisa