W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 1995

Re: Grievances - Wide

From: Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@beach.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 17:15:44 -0500
Message-Id: <199512072215.RAA03299@beach.w3.org>
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
In message <9512072137.AA01343@acetes.pa.dec.com>, Jeffrey Mogul writes:
>(2) Someone in the "working group management" MUST maintain a list of
>unresolved issues, preferrably as Web page so that people can check the
>current status.

This is a great idea, but I've tried to do it, and found it to be
exceedingly difficult. I expect some suitably easy-to-use issue
tracking tools to hit the web any time now, what with all the
collaboration experiments and Java applets wizzing around.

If anybody has a solution they really like, please let me know!

>(5) Proposed additions and changes to the spec MUST be accompanied by a
>written rationale, and SHOULD be accompanied by at least an attempt to
>analyze the proposal with respect to possible alternatives.  I would
>like to see brief summaries of these rationales and analyses included
>in the spec itself, since this would aid implementors in understanding
>the spec, and would probably avoid some future arguments.

This is another good idea. Again, I've found that it's a LOT of work.
I think you'd need another editor to take on the work of doing
a rationale. Any volunteers?

Received on Thursday, 7 December 1995 14:20:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:57 UTC