W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > July 2008

Re: at risk features

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:52:48 -0400
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20080703155248.1680a29a@kiferdesk>

I still do not like that wording because the reasons for marking several of the
different features as "at risk" have little to do with them being implemented.
"Based of feedback" is a much more neutral and acceptable wording.

If we retain the present wording then I would insist on reexamining the reasons behind marking each particular feature as "at risk" so that only the features that truly depend on the availability of implementations would be marked as such.


	--michael  


On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:25:19 -0400
Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

> 
> > I updated the working a little bit.  I believe this is the formal definition 
> > of what "at risk" means.
> 
> I see you changed 
> 
>     This feature is "at risk" and will be removed from this
>     specification if not sufficiently implemented
> 
> to 
> 
>     This feature is "at risk" and may be removed from this specification
>     based on implementation experience.  
> 
> which I'm fine with.  The governing language about this matter [1] is
> reached by clicking on "at risk" in that message, but it's not 100%
> clear. 
> 
> > Michael Kifer wrote:
> > > I object to the current formulation of the At Risk notes.
> > > What does it mean "if not sufficiently implemented"?
> > > It is not sufficiently clear to me.
> > > Also, features #1,2,3, in BLD and the ones in DTB have all different
> > > reasons for being marked at risk.
> 
> Does Chris' re-wording solve the problem?   If not, can you be more
> clear about what's unclear?   (sorry, but I can't figure out how to be
> more clear from just this.)
> 
>      -- Sandro
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfi
> 
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 19:53:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:50 GMT