RE: XBL comments

Really? That's not the impression I got from Dean at our last F2F (quote
from minutes, see [1]): 

DJ: There aren't really any clear requirements. However, we've been
asked to do the following:
DJ: 1. Link to the original comment message
DJ: 2. Link to the official WG response message (or messages)
DJ: 3. Link to the acknowledgment from the commenter (that they are
happy/unhappy with the response)
 
We spent a lot of time reviewing all the XBL2 comments at the last f2f,
and it would be a great help to us if you would simply ask: "Could you
please let us know if the above satisfies your comments?" Even if it's
not the W3C way, it seems to be the WAF way (see also all the emails
Dean sent out to people on the 26/10/2006 regarding XBL feedback). 

Kind regards,
Marcos 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/appformats/Minutes/XBL-Mins-2006-10-26.html


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] 
Sent: Thursday, 7 December 2006 3:34 AM
To: Marcos Caceres
Cc: WAF WG (public)
Subject: Re: XBL comments

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
> Can you please respond to these emails in such a way that they conform

> to the last call requirements? (ie. by asking the sender if they are 
> satisfied with your response). It saves the Working Group having to 
> chase up unsolved issues at the F2f meetings. For those who are
emailing 
> comments, you must state if you are satisfied with Ian's response to 
> your comments.

W3C process requirements do not require that responses include a request

to have the reviewer state their satisfaction with the response, nor do 
they require the working group to "chase up" issues that the reviewer
has 
not confirmed they agree to. Reviewers are not required to respond with 
approval. See section 3.3.3 of the process document (and RFC2119).

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2006 18:01:39 UTC