Re: XHTML 2.0 and Semantics

>Le jeu 16/01/2003 à 12:17, Tom Gilder a écrit :
>> What about having working groups being required to issue a monthly
>> newsletter stating what they have done in plain English? Requesting
>> feedback on issues?
>
>Being a participant in a WG, I can assure you that the fact that WG have
>to publish a draft every 3 months (as required by W3C Process Document)
>is already a very heavy requirement compared to the resources available
>in WGs. I'm sure that most WG do their best to reply to any issue raised
>in the right forum, to document their issues resolution and to highlight
>their open issues in their draft, but requiring them to have more formal
>communications on all the front is unlikely to happen due to resources
>constraint.

I agree formal communication with the public is not a reasonable
requirement, however I do feel a public issues list (perhaps with some
issues censored if necessary) published a number of weeks before a draft
moves phases, so the issuer has time to discover if their issue is being
discussed, or has been missed.  There is little extra cost in this other
than any censorship required to make the issues list public, rather than
member only.

Jim.

Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 09:13:11 UTC