- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:01:41 -0500
- To: Mike Schinkel <w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
-cc public-html; +cc www-archive On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 16:20 -0400, Mike Schinkel wrote: > Dan Connolly wrote: [...] > > I'm still maintaining an issues list. > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/il16 > > It doesn't include everything that anyone has sent mail about, > > but I suggest that this is a feature, not a bug. > > > That said, I was trying to create a mechanism that would make it > possible to easily find most discussions on a given topic. I wonder if you read what I wrote, carefully, before you responded. Once again: That some topics are harder to find than others is a *feature*, not a bug. I have explained several times now that I think an exhaustive index is *counter-productive*. The group can only work productively on so many things at once. If someone sends mail and I don't put it on my issues list within a week or two, I *want* it to be harder to find than threads that I do put on my issues list. One explanation was Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:00:27 -0500: | Of course | it doesn't capture _every_ idea, but I suggest that's | part of the dynamics of working together and filtering | the zillions of ideas down to one standard. > Is there not > some standard some way we can use to tie emails back to the list of > issues so that when searching for discussions on a topic it doesn't turn > into a year long research project? Yes, there is a standard way: il16 links to a number of mail messages using links to those messages in the hypertext archive. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 2 April 2007 21:01:43 UTC