W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > July 2006

Re: New draft of SVG Tiny 1.2

From: Andrew Shellshear <andrews@cisra.canon.com.au>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:57:30 +1000
Message-ID: <44C4452A.9050806@cisra.canon.com.au>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-svg@w3.org

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Chris Lilley wrote:
>> On Friday, July 21, 2006, 10:20:19 PM, Ian wrote:
>>> Most of the disagreements do not make it clear what the argument of 
>>> the commentor is,
>> That would be the first link on each comment, which takes you directly 
>> to the unabridged and original archived comment.
> By that argument, you don't need any of the summaries.
The commenter's position is usually well-explained by their own words in 
their own emails (usually the last email of the thread).  In cases where 
the working group disagrees with the commenter, we didn't send a further 
email saying "We disagree" once it's clear that further debate is 
pointless (ie. once everyone understands everyone else's positions, but 
still disagrees).  In these cases, we need to summarise our position, 
and that's where we do it.

> I am asking that the dispostion of comment take a neutral stance by 
> listing the positions of both the SVG WG and the commentor on any issue 
> that is marked as unresolved.
Personally, I don't think this is necessary, though I'm sure I could be 
persuaded otherwise.  The last-call disposition document points very 
clearly to the arguments made by the commenters, and I would expect that 
the small technical audience who read it would choose to delve, 
especially in cases of disagreement.  In other words, (for cases other 
than when the WG needs to summarise its position) I think I place lower 
importance on the Resolution than you do - the most important fact of 
the resolution is the colour; the wording is a hint, and the expectation 
is that the reader would consult the emails.  I mean, you don't get a 
lot out of the document unless you read at least the initial comment 
anyway - the titles aren't always particularly informative!

Having said that, of course we are trying to be accurate in summarising 
any disagreement.  No doubt we'll talk about this in our next 

Andrew S.
Received on Monday, 24 July 2006 17:40:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:09 UTC