W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Re: [semweb-lifesci]

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:17:56 -0500
To: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Message-ID: <20071114061756.GA15182@w3.org>
* Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk> [2007-11-13 14:04+0000]
> 
> >>>>> "PH" == Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> writes:
> 
>   >> Our Systems Team has fielded this request many times.
> 
>   PH> Its about time it bloody well listened, then.
> 
> Yes. 
> 
>   PH> By the way, the tone of the document [1] is extremely annoying. If the
>   PH> W3C were a company taking this attitude, it would have lost its customer
>   PH> base years ago. Of course, the W3C isn't a company: but y'all might give
>   PH> some thought to the fact the great bulk of the W3C's work is done by
>   PH> volunteers, who are the people getting screwed over by the Systems
>   PH> Team's almost palpable arrogance.
> 
> 
> The document suggests that if W3C sticks with it's silly policy, then perhaps
> mail client developers will fix their clients.
> 
> I think that the opposite is also true; if W3C is incapable of producing an
> mailing list which can be configured to their owners' wishes, rather than
> W3C's own dogma, we should perhaps move the mailing list elsewhere. I would
> rather see the effort invested in getting W3C to fix their broken policy than
> use workarounds which give them no incentive. 

The implication here is that W3C is imposing unusual policies in an
effort to steer MUA development. I have many arguments against subject
tagging, but first, some statistics to show just how common it
is. Eliding W3C lists from my survey (as that would be a vapid proof),
I examined the 22 lists to which I am subscribed. I found:

5 lists that use subject tagging:
diggers@lists.csail.mit.edu
emacs-nxml-mode@yahoogroups.com
xml-dev@lists.xml.org
csail-related@csail.mit.edu
w3m-dev-en@mi.med.tohoku.ac.jp

3 lists that never use "Subject: [...]" for anything:
ietf-xml-mime@imc.org
mozilla-netlib@mozilla.org
tutorials@www2005.org

14 lists that use "Subject: [...]" for something else:
general@xml.apache.org apache-general-xml
csail-discuss@lists.csail.mit.edu csail-discuss
gargonza@asemantics.com gargonza
ietf-types@alvestrand.no ietf-xml-mime
jde@sunsite.dk jde
mysql@lists.mysql.com lists.mysql.com
internals@lists.mysql.com
dev-tech-network@lists.mozilla.org mozilla-netlib
mozilla-rdf@mozilla.org mozilla-rdf
dev@httpd.apache.org new-httpd
perl-xml@listserv.ActiveState.com perl-xml
samba-announce@samba.org samba-announce
samba-docs@lists.samba.org samba-docs
dev@subversion.tigris.org subversion

The ones where [...] has other meanings are the most troubling as they
imply conflicts if one were to emply subject tagging. [announce] (or
some variant), [POLL], [vote], [PATCH], and [CLOSED] where the most
common uses for tagging (discounting boring ones added by the system
like {Re:...] and [Fwd:...]. Another conflict that my survey did not
detect was cross-posting.

I appreciate that there is the periodic need for a cost/benifit
analyis, but would be more sympathetic were the appeals for just that.

> Incidentally, I don't filter on subject line. 
> 
> Phil

-- 
-eric

office: +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
mobile: +1.617.599.3509

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 06:18:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:50 GMT