- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 20 Mar 2002 16:20:41 -0600
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 14:45, Simon St.Laurent wrote: > On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 14:22, Dan Connolly wrote: > > e.g. please keep in mind that getting the last > > word in an email thread is not the point; the > > last word is in the document. > > ... > > A rule of thumb I like: > > > > If a thread goes back and forth three times without > > anybody suggesting textual changes to the document, > > something's wrong. > > That's not a bad guideline, but insisting on that approach noone is insisting; just giving a rule of thum that has proved useful. > makes it > nearly impossible to question whether the document's intent is a good > idea in the first place. I don't see how intent is relevant at all. Either the text serves our purposes, or not; if not, then it seems reasonable to expect folks to suggest some text that will serve. > I hear painful echoes of statements like "The XML Schema Working Group > will only accept comments which address particular details of the XML > Schema drafts, not comment which question the overall approach." Where does that come from? > At least RFC 3205 is available as counterpoint to the discussion here, > informing the discussion of the wide-open definition of "the World Wide > Web" and point 2 of: > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/intro I can't figure out what you mean by this. You seem to suggest that something other than RFC 3205 is not available. What? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 17:20:18 UTC