Re: [CSS21] accepted/recommended forms of Subject for WD comments

On 12/12/2010 02:54 AM, Peter Moulder wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 06:08:01PM +0100, Bert Bos wrote:
>> When you send comments, please send them to this mailing list,
>> <>, and include [CSS21] in the subject.
> I see that both this announcement ("[CS21]") and some of the first
> comments sent ("[CSS 2.1]") use a different tag.
> In order to minimize the chance of any comments being missed by anyone
> scanning this mailing list, can someone please post a regexp or list of
> tags that will actually be searched for, so that humans reading the list
> can decide whether a post will be missed and post a followup (i.e. with
> appropriate In-Reply-To header but with "[CSS21]" in the subject line)
> that notes that the original appears to be intended as a comment on the
> CSS 2.1 working draft?

I generally search for CSS2.1 and CSS21 when compiling the list of
comments. If you add a tag to your replies to any CSS2.1 messages
without either of those in the subject, that would be *great*.

> Also related to subject lines: I see that some of the first comments
> helpfully include other text in the subject to mark the post as
> specifically a formal comment on the working draft (as distinct from
> messages about test suites, implementations, minutes, messages like this
> one, etc.), and to indicate the relevant section(s).  This seems useful,
> even if only so that other commenters can check whether an issue has
> already been reported.  Do editors or working group members have any
> preference for the form of these "sub-tags" ?  There's value in it being
> fairly short, to make it more likely that the full subject is visible
> in a mailer window, and make it less likely that the subject line is
> wrapped in the raw (rfc822) form of the message (which interferes with
> some simple-minded tools).  In absence of any subsequent suggestions or
> emerging consensus in practice, I suggest
> "[CSS21] WD2010 8.3.1: Short identifying description of issue".

I don't have a particular preference, but given that CSS2.1 is very
rarely republished, and we have the message date which we can correlate
to a latest publication anyway, the date of the WD doesn't seem
particularly necessary.


Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 08:56:21 UTC