W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: toward an issues list/agenda for the HTML WG

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 01:57:48 -0500
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <1174978668.5321.201.camel@dirk>

On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 16:22 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>    http://www.w3.org/html/wg/il16
> 
> ... If you couldn't read all the mail that went
> on that list, you can at least look at the agenda to see
> what the high priority things are.

Then...

On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 23:42 -0400, Mike Schinkel wrote:
> If you can give us some tools that will allow
> us to reduce the number of messages that we end up reading only
> to find out that we didn't need to read them...

And later...

On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 17:29 +1000, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
[...] 
> For instance, the threads about versioning and abbr vs. acronym are 
> mostly rehashing old arguments that many of us have been through before. 
>   I guarantee that you can search the archives of www-html and the 
> whatwg list and you will find the same topics come up over and over 
> again, with essentially the same arguments each time.  (Oddly enough, 
> the abbr vs. acronym debate started up again on www-html shortly after 
> it started here, so you won't need look far)


On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 00:32 -0400, Mike Schinkel wrote:
> You will notice I created the first issue: 
> 
>    http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/AbbrAcronym01

Trying out the ESW wiki is a tangible contribution, so thanks
for giving it a go.

But note that W3C WGs are obliged to address all the issues they take on.
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address

So adding an issue to an issues list is, pretty much, promising
to address it formally, before Last Call. So it has a schedule impact.

So if the list of issues you started in the wiki is to be adopted
by the WG, we'll need to use some discretion in adding to it. Just
because lots of people talked about abbr/acronym doesn't mean
we should talk about it more in the future. And I'm hesitant
to add "versioning" to the issues list without refining the scope
significantly; XMLVersioning-41 is right next to ultimateQuestion-42 on
the TAG issue list, and sometimes I wonder if that's a coincidence or not. ;-)
  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues


Perhaps we'll eventually get to the point where most all the participants
in the WG have a shared sense of priority and a shared sense of what merits
space on the issues list (and hence on the WG schedule). But while we're
getting acquainted, please let's not give an issue name and number
to every brainstorming idea.



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2007 06:58:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2007 06:58:14 GMT