- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:10:07 +0300
- To: "Rick Waldron" <waldron.rick@gmail.com>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:46:31 +0300, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 4/12/13 11:41 AM, Rick Waldron wrote: >> I don't think it's unreasonable, I'm subscribed to (and read all of) >> both lists—because it's important to me. I doubt I'm the only one >> willing to bridge this gap. > > I'm not saying it's unreasonable for someone to be subscribed to both. > > I'm saying expecting _everyone_ to do it is not reasonable, given > traffic volumes. Agree. > For my personal situation, I basically had to pick between es-discuss > and www-style to keep mail traffic manageable... I'm sure others have > to make similar tradeoffs. Yeah, I have had to choose between competing things in my life once or twice ;) >> TC39 and other participants of es-discuss will commit to cc'ing >> public-script-coord whenever the subject matter is appropriate. > > That would be awesome. Indeed. > From the other direction, I think expecting W3C spec editors to cc > public-script-coord on basic things like "here is an API we're > designing" is a totally reasonable expectation. In fact, I would > support making it part of a FPWD publication checklist. As a co-chair of webapps which is *one* of the groups that makes APIs I think it makes good sense to notify public-script-coord when we start a work item, and request review at points like FPWD and last call. Unless someone suggests it is a bad idea, I'll add that to things about how we work. I can also suggest it to other W3C chairs - it seems like a very lightweight requirement that would be a useful practice. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 12 April 2013 16:10:40 UTC