Re: discretion in adding issues [was: respecification of document.write...]

HI Dan,

Just a follow-up on this previous email.

I understand that issues places a burden on the WG. I wish the process  
went smoother so that edits to the draft occurred in some  
correspondence to the deliberations of the WG. Until that happens, I  
can't see another way to handle this then through the issue-tracker  
system.

Having said all of that, although I usually cannot attend the  
teleconferences, I want to let you know (as  also conveyed to   
Gregory, Laura and Joshue who often can attend teleconferences) that I  
am available to work on these issues: i.e., drafting spec language,  
coordinating research needs and facilitating discussion. I hope you  
understand too, that a great amount of work — by me and many other WG  
members — already has gone into discussing these topics and congealing  
them into actionable items from all of these lengthy prior discussions.

If you need me to perform any specific actions on these items, please  
do not hesitate to let me know.

Take care,
Rob

On May 29, 2008, at 4:37 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:

>
> On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 15:47 +0000, Robert J Burns wrote:
>> HI Dan,
>>
>> On May 29, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 21:10 +0000, Robert J Burns wrote:
>>>> Dear WG,
>>>>
>>>> Here is another issue that needs to be introduced here for
>>>> discussion,
>>>> as it will be added to the issue-tracker in time.
>>>
>>> Adding an issue to the tracker creates a burden for the whole group,
>>> so it's not the sort of thing we should do at the request
>>> of just one person.
>>
>> I understand.
>>
>>
>>> "need" is a strong word; it's not at all clear to me that
>>> the WG _needs_ to make a decision about respecification
>>> of document.write.
>>
>> I'm not sure where you're referring to the use of the word "need". My
>> use of that word was that I "need" to send an introductory message to
>> the list about the issue (that was referring to my own sense of duty
>> allowing the WG to discuss the issue). I don't know why you would  
>> have
>> any dispute about that. Though perhaps you're referring to a  
>> different
>> occurrence of that word.
>
> OK; I (mis) understood you to say that the WG needs to make a decision
> about this.
>
>> This issue of document.write was not requested by specifically one
>> person (at least not in my recollection). Rather it arose out of some
>> discussion with many WG members of the inconsistencies between the
>> text/html and XML serializations and the difficulties any author  
>> faces
>> in trying to transition from one to the other.
>
> If that's so, then it should be straightforward to substantiate from
> the mailing list archives; I don't see any reason to be hasty
> and go by recollection.
>
>> I personally have no
>> stake in that, but felt the editor was not adequately addressing  
>> those
>> concerns (along with most of the others, I've just recently raised).
>>
>> Take care,
>> Rob
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>

Received on Friday, 30 May 2008 10:35:40 UTC