W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2006

Re: The xhtml:onkeypress architecture

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 03:37:26 +0100
To: www-archive@w3.org, steven.pemberton@cwi.nl
Cc: process-issues@w3.org
Message-ID: <nu15v11lpnroqsv9k2ijqjguj5aktbpm10@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Steven Pemberton wrote:
>> I would appreciate if the HTML Working Group could document
>> the design principles established by this new feature in a better way
>> than marking this issue as unresolved in the Group's issue tracker,
>> 
>>   http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/voyager-issues/Modularization-abstractions?page=2
>>   http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/voyager-issues/Modularization-abstractions?id=8444
>
>You are right that we did forget to mark those as closed.

I see the tracker is updated now, thanks, it's good to see rationale for
decisions documented, even if late. I am a little bit concerned about
this though, I'd appreciate if you could answer some questions to remove
my doubts.

As you say above, the Working Group resolved this issue and others, but
the tracker didn't reflect this. Isn't the tracker the main source of
information about the status of issues? I would think someone should
have noticed this when drafting or reviewing the transition request, so
there must be some other tracking system that reflects status of issues
more accurately?

A number of issues changed status since yesterday, but I and other re-
viewers apparently didn't receive any notification of such changes. It
would seem the tracker should be linked to e-mail so reviewers can take
note of resolutions and acknowledge the response. Isn't this the case?

Sadly though sometimes reviewers aren't satisfied by responses, as I
wasn't in case of the issue above, but the tracker does not reflect my
dissatisfaction. This seems to confirm that there is some other tracking
system, perhaps this other tracking system could be combined with this
one to avoid any confusion? Looking a bit around, I see old issues like

  http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/voyager-issues/Modularization-text?id=8302

As you know, I wasn't satisfied by the response either, this does not
seem to be reflected there. I raised this issue then with the HCG and
you came back to me saying the issue will be addressed "by removing the
list from M12N." The PR still has the list, so I wonder what happend?
Another issue that changed status since yesterday is

  http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/voyager-issues/Modularization-text?id=8334

As noted above, I never learned of the resolution. I checked my inbox
and all I could find was the initial auto-reply that the issue got added
to the tracker. Now, since the tracker never got updated, I wonder
whether there was some other e-mail response?

I could not find it in the www-html-editor archives, I'd appreciate if
you could lookup the details, possibly a pointer to an archived copy of
it, so I can check what's wrong with my mail setup. It's important to me
to know, since I cannot agree with the rejection of the issue, I'd be
sorry if I had missed the opportunity to provide further clarification
on the issue.

Thanks again,
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2006 02:36:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:54 GMT