Re: New Validator Error Suggestions

On Saturday, August 30, 2003, at 11:41 AM, Terje Bless wrote:
> Hmmm. I hadn't considered that. If the number of suggestions becomes 
> excessive
> — that is, if we actually do get suggestions for every missing 
> explanation or
> improvements to the existing ones — this would quickly turn into a 
> problem.
> OTOH, having these suggestions here allows peer review by a wider 
> audience
> (and avoids Yet Another Mailinglist).

I kinda agree, but please make it clear in the link that the comments
will be going to a LIST, where the ideas may be disputed or even
attacked.

Many people would NOT want to provide feedback if they knew it would
undergo a "peer review" process such as that seen here:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2003Aug/0141.html

I am not criticizing Jukka for his response -- in fact, I agree 100%
with it! -- but I think that most people who might submit quick ideas
on improving a message they don't understand would be shocked to receive
such a message.  The response is _entirely appropriate_ for this list's
style of discussion, but it is _wholly inappropriate_ for a general
user feedback email, which is what the current setup solicits.

Jukka cannot be faulted for responding to a list message in a list-
appropriate manner, so I believe the problem lies in requesting end
user feedback to come to this mailing list.  A better solution would
be Yet Another List, and the best responses could be culled (in
batch, perhaps) by Terje or someone else and sent here for discussion.

--Kynn

--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                     http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain                http://idyllmtn.com
Author, CSS in 24 Hours                       http://cssin24hours.com
Shock & Awe Blog                                http://shock-awe.info
Inland Anti-Empire Blog                   http://inlandantiempire.org