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

RE: Where to discuss versioning finding (was: Re: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning)

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:29:51 -0400
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: "Bryan Rasmussen" <BRS@itst.dk>, www-tag@w3.org, "David Ezell" <David_E3@VERIFONE.com>
Message-ID: <OFDF381239.D9D1D25B-ON852571B8.0064C1CA-852571B8.00659C36@lotus.com>

David Orchard writes:

> Well, there's 2 complicating factors:
> 
> One is that the Schema WG is having it's discussions on a member only
> list and their documents are member only.  This makes it difficult for
> to talk about versioning related schema 1.1 documents on a public list.
> I've already had one comment about that. 

The schema WG voted some time ago to make its discussions relating to 
versioning public, and in particular to allow for their discussion on 
public-xml-versioning@w3.org.  Indeed, the vote to make those discussions 
public was taken largely because of the understanding that work done in 
conjunction with the TAG needs to be on public lists whenever possible.  I 
suggest you confirm with workgroup chair David Ezell and the Schema WG 
itself that they would be willing to make promptly available on the public 
lists the pieces of their work necessary to support the discussion we're 
having here.

> Second is that the purpose of the TAG finding has drastically changed
> form xml-versioning to versioning.  I'm not sure that the xml-versioning
> list should follow that transition as well.

Hmm, that point seems to carry a bit more weight for me.  Still, I think 
part of the reason for creating the public-xml-versioning@w3.org was a 
suspicion that a detailed discussion of versioning was likely to take a 
higher rate of traffic than some readers of www-tag would want to see. I'm 
not sure that's changed. So, I'm tempted to suggest that we broaden the 
scope of public-xml-versioning@w3.org and have the discussion there, 
largely so that people won't feel so bound by the suggestion that "If a 
thread goes back and forth three times without anybody suggesting textual 
changes to the document, something's wrong." [1] That's a good rule that 
should be observed more often for most TAG discussions;  I suspect that 
versioning is a sufficiently big and wide open topic that sticking to such 
limits for it would prove difficult.

As I said before, I'm OK with either public list, as long as we're clear 
that it's the one and let the discussion happen with all the necessary 
detail and back-n-forth.  I'm unhappy if the discussion is split, messages 
are frequently cross posted, etc.

Noah

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/#tag-attn


--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------






        "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
        Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
        07/27/2006 01:51 PM 
                 To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
                 cc: "Bryan Rasmussen" <BRS@itst.dk>
                 Subject: RE: Where to discuss versioning finding (was: 
Re: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning)



Well, there's 2 complicating factors:

One is that the Schema WG is having it's discussions on a member only
list and their documents are member only.  This makes it difficult for
to talk about versioning related schema 1.1 documents on a public list.
I've already had one comment about that. 

Second is that the purpose of the TAG finding has drastically changed
form xml-versioning to versioning.  I'm not sure that the xml-versioning
list should follow that transition as well.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of
> noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 8:34 AM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Cc: Bryan Rasmussen
> Subject: Where to discuss versioning finding (was: Re:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning)
> 
> 
> Hmm. I thought that, due to the shared interest in versioning, I.e.
among
> the TAG, the XML Schema WG and others, we had agreed to use
> public-xml-versioning@w3.org to discuss this draft finding, but I note
> that the draft currently says:  "Please send comments on this finding
to
> the publicly archived TAG mailing list www-tag@w3.org (archive)."
> 
> Bryan has made and interesting post, and given the instructions in the
> draft finding his sending it to www-tag@w3.org is appropriate.  Still,
I'm
> tempted to change the draft finding to point to
> public-xml-versioning@w3.org and to follow up on Bryan's posting
there.
> Having the discussion of versioning split between two lists seems
worse
> than a consistent choice of either one, and I believe we've already
> established public-xml-versioning@w3.org.  What say you, other TAG
> members?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 27 July 2006 18:30:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:41 GMT