Jeffrey Mogul: > > I think you will do yourself and the IESG a service by identifying > in the document itself the ways in which it is controversial, > and at least mentioning the alternatives that have been proposed > ("statistical sampling") even though not explored. > >I would be happy to cite, in the next revision of the hit-metering >draft, any documents that specify alternative proposals. Two pretty comprehensive references: http://www2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu/novak/web.standards/webstand.html http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Demographics/ Some specific proposals: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Demographics/Proposals.html http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/WD-proxy.html Koen.Received on Sunday, 23 February 1997 12:29:12 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:01 UTC