Re: Public input to specs [was: HTML 3.2 -Reply ]

Fisher Mark (FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com)
Fri, 10 May 96 15:48:00 PDT


From: Fisher Mark <FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com>
To: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-html <www-html@www10.w3.org>
Subject: RE: Public input to specs [was: HTML 3.2 -Reply ]
Date: Fri, 10 May 96 15:48:00 PDT
Message-Id: <3193C8E3@MSMAIL.INDY.TCE.COM>


>But more to the point: I'm tasked with forwarding anything that looks
>like a constructive criticism to the spec (e.g. the DIV wording, the
>UL PLAIN and FIG input etc.) to the review board, and I often chair
>the meetings where they get discussed. Dave Raggett also tries to keep
>tabs on public forums, but he's got more writing assignments than I
>do, so he does less of it. A few other W3C folks do the same.
>
>We expect to track the issues raised in public review on a web
>page, but we haven't started yet.

Am I correctly restating what you have said here (and in other messages) 
that the current W3C process allows members to propose ideas with less 
chance of flamewars erupting :), but that reasonable suggestions, ideas, 
etc. proposed by members of this list will be listened to (esp. when we have 
working examples).  Of course, unreasonable suggestions will be ignored. 
 Basically, the current process lets a reasonable first draft (and perhaps 
final draft of some sections) be written in a reasonable timeframe.

Or am I just missing the point?

(Sorry for the earlier misspelling of your last name -- I don't know where 
that errant 'a' keeps coming from!)
======================================================================
Mark Leighton Fisher                   Thomson Consumer Electronics
fisherm@indy.tce.com                   Indianapolis, IN