W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > November 2008

Re: XML Base DoC [was: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2008 November 19]

From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:18:29 +0000 (GMT)
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20081119151829.6B46A4C1E17@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>

> For each issue, following the issue identifier, there is
> a parenthesized pair of words.  Am I correct to understand
> that a second word value of "agreed" means the commentor
> agreed with our disposition?  (At first I thought it meant
> the WG agreed with the comment, so this isn't really
> obvious.)  If so, it would be nice if the word "agreed"
> had a green background.

I'm using the same formats and stylesheets as Henry is for the
XML 5th ed DoC.  I'll see about adding some css to do the colours.

Yes, the "agreed" in the Issue line means the commenter has
agreed to it.

> Assuming I am correct about my assumption above, how do I
> find the email showing that agreement?  It would be best if
> the word "agreed" was a link to the commentor's acceptance email.

Yes, at present it's usually just the last message.

> What's the difference between "pending" and "silent"?  In
> any case, if we give "agreed" a green background, we should
> give these a yellow background.  (A red background would be
> for an official objection.)

If it stays pending long enough when it's their turn to reply,
it becomes silent.

> The field that says "response" is ambiguous.  I wasn't sure
> at first whether it was the WG response or the commentors
> response to our disposition.  It would be clearer if we
> said "Disposition" instead of "Response".

Or "WG response".

I've made some of these changes.

-- Richard

-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 15:19:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:39 UTC