W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2002

Re: Point of order re traffic

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 20 Mar 2002 16:20:41 -0600
To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1016662842.26063.6.camel@dirk>
On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 14:45, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 14:22, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > e.g. please keep in mind that getting the last
> > word in an email thread is not the point; the
> > last word is in the document.
> > ...
> > A rule of thumb I like:
> > 
> > If a thread goes back and forth three times without
> > anybody suggesting textual changes to the document,
> > something's wrong.
> 
> That's not a bad guideline, but insisting on that approach

noone is insisting; just giving a rule of thum
that has proved useful.

> makes it
> nearly impossible to question whether the document's intent is a good
> idea in the first place.

I don't see how intent is relevant at all.
Either the text serves our purposes, or not;
if not, then it seems reasonable to expect
folks to suggest some text that will serve.


> I hear painful echoes of statements like "The XML Schema Working Group
> will only accept comments which address particular details of the XML
> Schema drafts, not comment which question the overall approach."

Where does that come from?


> At least RFC 3205 is available as counterpoint to the discussion here,
> informing the discussion of the wide-open definition of "the World Wide
> Web" and point 2 of:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/intro

I can't figure out what you mean by this.
You seem to suggest that something other than RFC 3205 is
not available. What?

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 17:20:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:16 GMT