Re: a question about LC comments

At 11:40 PM 2/7/03 +0900, Olivier Thereaux wrote:
>[...]
>I see. But usually when people send a comment to the list they usually 
>don't have the id of their issue-to-be either. By the way, I was just 
>thinking about the <uri> element you said was not used for issues yet. I 
>have used it as "uri where the problem is", but could it be "uri of the 
>message in the list", ala, http://www.w3.org/mid/foobar@hello.org ? Could 
>be useful for tracking. Anyway, just an idea.

It's a possibility.  But actually, I think that both are useful.  That is 
the conclusion I have come to over the last year of messing with the Issues 
List.  The present scheme is:  each issue has a "Ref" to a location in a 
spec (which should be the 'uri' element, but I completely forgot that 
element existed in the markup grammar!).  And each issue at the beginning 
has the text:  "[email]", which anchors a link to the originating message.

Just thinking out loud... if your process could email to the IG list, then 
capture the IG archive pointer, put it into the XML (in a link on "[email]" 
text within 'description'), then email to me.  That would be ideal and 
would solve the correlation annoyance.  However if that would not be easy 
or if it would be a lot of work ... let's not waste too much time on it.

Bottom line.  I would prefer to have the 'uri' hold the spec. reference as 
you are currently doing.  I can use the (http://www.w3.org/mid/) service, 
as I have been doing all along, to get the archive address and paste it in, 
when I receive the IG message and file the issue (for merger).  Imagining 
ahead, I envision that I will be getting two messages with the same 
"Subject" -- one from the IG mailer, and one from you containing the markup 
also.  Yes?  (That makes it pretty easy to correlate, using Eudora "sort by 
subject" and the /mid/ thingy.)

>[...]
>Yes. The form script is pretty stable now, I just have to change the 
>address on monday (currently) from me + me to list + issue editor (you). 
>It wouldn't be too hard to change, but I prefer to do it this way 
>(commenting some lines of code is easier than adding some :)
>
>I'm not very likely to be online during the week-end, but if someone 
>notices something wrong with the form before monday, I can fix it on (my) 
>monday (that's sunday for most of the world).

I still owe you some pull-down stuff for Frm:Intro form.  If you have it in 
hand your Monday AM, which will be our Sunday, will that work?  I'm sorry 
for last-minute, and I was supposed to circulate for WG review and comment, 
but ... too much to do.

-Lofton.