RE: XBL comments

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> 
> Really? That's not the impression I got from Dean at our last F2F (quote 
> from minutes, see [1]):
> 
> DJ: There aren't really any clear requirements. However, we've been
> asked to do the following:
> DJ: 1. Link to the original comment message
> DJ: 2. Link to the official WG response message (or messages)
> DJ: 3. Link to the acknowledgment from the commenter (that they are
> happy/unhappy with the response)

It's quite possible that the W3C is requesting things that aren't part of 
the W3C's process; W3C process violations are quite common and do not seem 
to ever be addressed (see, e.g., SVG Tiny 1.2). I am attempting to follow 
W3C process while being polite to reviewers; repeatedly telling reviewers 
that they must reply within two weeks is not polite and is not required by 
the W3C process document. (I've been on the receiving end of "please reply 
within two weeks", and it seems very rude, especially when the working 
group itself takes months to reply.)


> We spent a lot of time reviewing all the XBL2 comments at the last f2f, 
> and it would be a great help to us if you would simply ask: "Could you 
> please let us know if the above satisfies your comments?"

I really don't understand how it helps anyone, especially not the 
reviewers. Could you elaborate?


> Even if it's not the W3C way, it seems to be the WAF way (see also all 
> the emails Dean sent out to people on the 26/10/2006 regarding XBL 
> feedback).

I didn't really see the point in those e-mails. They seemed, to me, to be 
somewhat rude (no offense intended to Dean, who I am sure meant them in 
the best possible way).

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2006 19:18:15 UTC