W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > February 2004

Re: Please don't point to as yet empty Issues

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:58:39 -0500
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20040227165437.054608e0@localhost>
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org

Hello Ian,

I can accept the TAG's decision to refer to issues rather than
findings if the findings are still in draft stage. But that
addresses only a detail of my comment.

To be even more general than in my original comment, the way
issues (and also findings) are cited is frustrating, because
it might be very important, it might be very interesting,
or there might be very little, or not terribly interesting
or related to the topic. About the only text used is
things like "see also ...". There needs to be more help
for the reader to decide whether she wants to follow the
link (and more help for somebody who has the spec printed out).

Regards,  Martin.


At 14:50 04/02/27 -0500, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 13:08, Martin Duerst wrote:
> > This is a specific example of a somewhat more general problem,
> > namely the way Issues (and Findings) are referenced in WebArch,
> > giving virtually no information about how these relate to the
> > text.
> >
> > Section 2.6 points to issue DerivedResources-43. When I'm finally
> > there (not easy because I'm starting from a print copy,
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#DerivedResources-43),
> > the only thing I see is 'raised' and 'accepted'. So why should I
> > go there in the first place? And how can the authors guarantee
> > that this issue will indeed be relevant?
> >
> > I propose to not point to issues that don't have reached a
> > certain maturity (in which case pointing to the finding is
> > probably better).
>
>Hi Martin,
>
>Section 1.1.2 states:
>
>   "Since the findings evolve independently, this document also includes
>references to approved TAG findings. For other TAG issues covered by
>this document but without an approved finding, references are to entries
>in the TAG issues list."
>
>The TAG explicitly resolved to not refer to draft findings.
>
>  _ Ian
>--
>Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Friday, 27 February 2004 16:58:49 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Friday, 27 February 2004 16:58:51 EST