Re: [css3-color] #rrggbbaa annotation, do we need to change the process?

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Eduard Pascual <herenvardo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Post to this mailing list, with the name of the spec you're commenting on
>>> in square brackets at the beginning of the subject."
>> Ok. Now... is something as basic and fundamental as that said anywhere
>> on the W3C or the CSS site? I have noticed that convention over time,
>> but it's the first time I see it explicitly laid out anywhere.
>
> It's in the boilerplate preamble to every spec.  You're forgiven for
> skipping over it.  ^_^
I'd swear I had sometimes read that part of the specs (especially
while I was getting used to the meaning of the different stages of the
process; since it's on the same paragraph).

Now, seriously: wouldn't be appropriate to set up a FAQ-like page to
put all these things together? Things that could go there include:
- Conventions, such as that one.
- What is welcome from external contributors.
- What is *not* welcome from external contributors (spam, flaming, and
trolling are the obvious ones, but also "How do I?" questions, and
possibly other stuff, you'll  know better than me).
- Links to the resources for the most common things that are sent here
but should go somewhere else.
- Advise on how to structure postings (for example, if you look at the
WHATWG's FAQ [1], it takes a few lines to explain the difference
between top-posting and inline replying, and why the later is
preferred). Also, some guidance on how to describe use-cases and
requirements would be useful.

IMO, there should be an easily findable place gathering all this kind
of stuff together.
As this thread has been going on, I have grown to realize that the
only real issue about the W3C's process is the lack of proper
understanding of the process by the potential contributors.

Regards,
Eduard Pascual

[1] http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ

Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 06:34:04 UTC