- From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <rden@loc.gov>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 18:38:47 -0400
- To: "Thomas Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de>, "public-xg-lld" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>, "public-lld" <public-lld@w3.org>
From: "Thomas Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de> To: "public-xg-lld" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>; "public-lld" <public-lld@w3.org> Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 2:25 PM Subject: Role of public-xg-lld and public-lld mailing lists > In short, we stand by our position of using two lists with > extensive cross-posting. As I've said I support the two-list system (and perhaps I'm the only one other than the Chairs who has said so) but why the "extensive cross posting"? Why not implement the plan (as I suggested) where administrative matters are confined to the XG list and all substantive content confined to the public list? --Ray
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 22:39:28 UTC