toward HTML spec review: issue tracking, breadth-first/depth-first, etc.

I closed discussion last week, with an expectation
of starting a somewhat structured review this week.

I made some progress in that direction, but haven't
figured out all the details.

For issue tracking, I've been using a web page for a while.
    http://www.w3.org/html/wg/il16

This works only as long as I personally am involved in every issue.
It's time to move beyond that now.

There's some progress with Bugzilla; I don't
particularly like it, but it's supported by the
W3C systems team...
   http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueTrackerRequirements

There's also the question of breadth-first vs depth-first
review; I stuck some ideas in the wiki...

[[

     *

       the obvious/naive approach: breadth-first, section-by-section, a 
la "any issues with section 1? ok, ... on to section 2..." Just raising 
issues, not discussing/resolving them.
     *

       going in depth on one or more sections/topics:
           o

             parsing/tree-generation
           o

             forms
           o

             canvas
           o

             sections, lists, tables
           o

             Writing HTML documents (8.1.)
]]
  -- http://esw.w3.org/topic/HtmlTaskBrainstorm

I'd like a few more volunteers to help with "issue tracking, 
summarization, and clustering"
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tasks83/

I hesitate to open this discussion up to the whole working group;
it largely up to those who do the work to say how it's done.

But I figure I owe a status report today, if not clear instructions
on how to being the review process.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/