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

XML Base DoC

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:26:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020CA322A7@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Tobin [mailto:richard@inf.ed.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 2008 September 09 10:24
> To: Grosso, Paul; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2008 September 10
> > ACTION to Richard:  Develop a DoC document for XML Base.
> Now at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2008/09/xmlbase-2e/disposition.html

I see it's been updated this morning, thanks.

This may be "mere diplomacy" (or some might call it "marketing"),
but if I were Steve or TimBL and saw a bunch of "rejected"
comments, it would raise red flags, and I don't think one
should get such a feeling given the facts.

Therefore, I'd like to suggest a different presentation
of the facts.

For each issue, I would have a separate line between
Discussions and Response titled Resolution, and here
is what I would say for each issue:


No change to spec.  Commentor question answered.

Clarification added to spec.

No change to spec.  Commentor misunderstanding explained.

No change to spec.  

Clarification added to spec.  [given your email this morning]

[still awaiting HT action]


Your "Response" field is fine, but then I would add a final
field called "Commentor response" which will be one of
Accepted, Objected, No response where the first two would
be a link to the relevant email (you need only point to
the last, not every message in the discussion).  Better yet 
if "Accepted" had a green background, "Objected" red, and 
"No response" yellow.

Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 14:26:53 UTC

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