- From: Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@beach.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 17:15:44 -0500
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
In message <9512072137.AA01343@acetes.pa.dec.com>, Jeffrey Mogul writes: > >(2) Someone in the "working group management" MUST maintain a list of >unresolved issues, preferrably as Web page so that people can check the >current status. This is a great idea, but I've tried to do it, and found it to be exceedingly difficult. I expect some suitably easy-to-use issue tracking tools to hit the web any time now, what with all the collaboration experiments and Java applets wizzing around. If anybody has a solution they really like, please let me know! >(5) Proposed additions and changes to the spec MUST be accompanied by a >written rationale, and SHOULD be accompanied by at least an attempt to >analyze the proposal with respect to possible alternatives. I would >like to see brief summaries of these rationales and analyses included >in the spec itself, since this would aid implementors in understanding >the spec, and would probably avoid some future arguments. This is another good idea. Again, I've found that it's a LOT of work. I think you'd need another editor to take on the work of doing a rationale. Any volunteers? Dan
Received on Thursday, 7 December 1995 14:20:27 UTC