W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mobileok-checker@w3.org > November 2008

RE: Mailing-list for the feedback on the W3C mobileOK Checker service

From: Abel Rionda <abel.rionda@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 21:05:16 +0100
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281904BCAA75@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Francois Daoust" <fd@w3.org>, "public-mobileok-checker" <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>

Hi Francois,

It sounds good. I think it's better to have only
one list for all the checker stuff.

Regards,
Abel.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org] En nombre de Francois
Daoust
Enviado el: viernes, 31 de octubre de 2008 17:24
Para: public-mobileok-checker
Asunto: Mailing-list for the feedback on the W3C mobileOK Checker
service


Hi Checker guys,

I am currently trying to improve the W3C mobileOK Checker service 
interface, frontend of the Java library on the W3C servers:
  http://validator.w3.org/mobile
  (no changes yet)

As part of the changes I will make to the interface, I will add some 
feedback page that encourages people to send bugs and/or complaints to 
some public mailing-list, something similar to, though not as detailed 
for the time being:
  http://validator.w3.org/feedback.html

I was wondering whether I could use this mailing-list or whether I 
should rather create another dedicated one.

I understand the User Interface is not a deliverable of the Task Force 
but part of the feedback is likely to be on the Java library itself.

I don't expect we'll receive lots of emails, and I am not thinking about

adding "replying to the feedback received" as a work item for the 
Checker task force either. I just thought that having one forum for both

the UI and the library seems better than two, especially since our job 
on the Checker is essentially done, so we're moving to maintenance
mode...

What do you think? Good idea? Bad idea?

Francois.
Received on Sunday, 2 November 2008 20:05:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 2 November 2008 20:05:23 GMT