- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 14:10:36 +0200
- To: "Close, Tyler J." <tyler.close@hp.com>
- Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
(Changed subject so this thread comes to tracker's attention.) On 2007-08-29 18:26:22 -0000, Close, Tyler J. wrote: > In my opinion, the Note use-cases do not list the techniques that > are on our agenda to study as possible recommendations. > Were that the case, there are several techniques that are not > represented. I think there is a basic issue of fairness in > ensuring that the use-cases only describe user decisions, and not > tilt the playing field toward any particular recommendation > proposal by presupposing the use of a particular mechanism. Two points about that meta-comments: - Our overall agenda does not come from any single source. Neither "are" the use cases our agenda, nor "are" the recommendation proposals in the wiki that agenda, nor "are" last call comments that agenda. All of them are or will be sources that our agenda comes from. Let me repeat: The use cases are *one* of the inputs that lead to our agenda, and at some point it will make sense to revisit them and ask ourselves which use cases we have or have not addressed, and to decide whether we want to fix that, or whether we're giving up on some. For instance, there are some questions about software installation listed in the use cases that we haven't bothered with so far. The use case document will serve as a reminder. So, including a particular use case to remind ourselves of revisiting a particular interaction or complexity is fundamentally a good thing. - The notion that including a use case that assumes a certain infrastructure (here: blacklists) will somehow "tilt the playing field" in an undue way is, how shall I say that, far-fetched -- in particular when the use case clearly points out an infrastructure that is deployed to some extent, and helps keep in mind certain interactions and complexisties that this kind of infrastructure adds to the overall environment. (There is no way we'd start protocol work on blacklists or reputation services, for instance, simply because that's out of scope for us.) What does indeed shape the playing field is the amount of interest that the group at large has in certain topics, and also the ability to come to compromises that the whole group can support. That's a rather fundamental truth that you won't evade by having procedural arguments about the note. Finally, let me note that references to individual technical proposals (maybe even by wiki name) are out of place in the note, simply because these would be meaningless dangling references to the readership. That's, however, different from the use case at hand. Regards, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Saturday, 1 September 2007 12:10:40 UTC