- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:11:26 +0200
- To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Nov 9, 2009, at 07:02, Simon Pieters wrote: > On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:20:30 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak > <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > >> 3) It's also possible to have a call for consensus on cross-WG >> comments. But I agree with Sam that it's more considerate to send >> collected comments from individuals, because then the receiving WG >> knows who to talk to if they disagree. Indeed, I'd suggest that >> future cross-WG comments should name the individuals who provided >> them. > > Maybe the individuals can send their feedback to the relevant WG > directly (unless the relevant WG explicitly prefer one batch email > with feedback)? > > http://www.w3.org/mid/op.u20tqopiidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local I concur with Simon's comments--both the technical comments and the procedural comments. (I didn't volunteer to review the MathML 3 spec, because I didn't want to make promises I wasn't sure I could keep. However, in my reading so far, I've only made notes that were duplicates of Simon's comments.) What's the point of sending feedback as a Working Group? When the HTML WG gets a request for comments, wouldn't it be better if the chairs responded that the WG doesn't send feedback as a group but encourages participants to send their comments to the requester in their own name? If the requester of comments cares about the provenance of the comments instead of caring only about the content of the comments, it seems to me that "HTML WG" is a useless provenance label. It seems to me it would be more useful to know if the comment comes from a person working on code relevant to the comment (as developer or QA), a person working on a UA but not on part relevant to the comment, a Web author already using a previous iteration of the spec being commented on or someone else. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 09:12:03 UTC