W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2010

[CSS21] accepted/recommended forms of Subject for WD comments

From: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 21:54:37 +1100
To: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <20101212105437.GA28120@bowman.infotech.monash.edu.au>
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 06:08:01PM +0100, Bert Bos wrote:
> When you send comments, please send them to this mailing list, 
> <www-style@w3.org>, and include
> 
>     [CSS21]
> 
> in the subject.

I see that both this announcement ("[CS21]") and some of the first
comments sent ("[CSS 2.1]") use a different tag.

In order to minimize the chance of any comments being missed by anyone
scanning this mailing list, can someone please post a regexp or list of
tags that will actually be searched for, so that humans reading the list
can decide whether a post will be missed and post a followup (i.e. with
appropriate In-Reply-To header but with "[CSS21]" in the subject line)
that notes that the original appears to be intended as a comment on the
CSS 2.1 working draft?

Also related to subject lines: I see that some of the first comments
helpfully include other text in the subject to mark the post as
specifically a formal comment on the working draft (as distinct from
messages about test suites, implementations, minutes, messages like this
one, etc.), and to indicate the relevant section(s).  This seems useful,
even if only so that other commenters can check whether an issue has
already been reported.  Do editors or working group members have any
preference for the form of these "sub-tags" ?  There's value in it being
fairly short, to make it more likely that the full subject is visible
in a mailer window, and make it less likely that the subject line is
wrapped in the raw (rfc822) form of the message (which interferes with
some simple-minded tools).  In absence of any subsequent suggestions or
emerging consensus in practice, I suggest
"[CSS21] WD2010 8.3.1: Short identifying description of issue".

Thanks,

pjrm.
Received on Sunday, 12 December 2010 10:55:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:35 GMT