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

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@beach.w3.org)
Mon, 13 May 1996 09:44:04 -0400


Message-Id: <m0uIxuv-0002UPC@beach.w3.org>
To: Fisher Mark <FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com>
Cc: www-html <www-html@www10.w3.org>
Subject: Re: Public input to specs [was: HTML 3.2 -Reply ] 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 10 May 1996 15:48:00 PDT."
             <3193C8E3@MSMAIL.INDY.TCE.COM> 
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 09:44:04 -0400
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>

In message <3193C8E3@MSMAIL.INDY.TCE.COM>, Fisher Mark writes:
>
>>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.

Yes, that's an accurate way to put it.

Dan