- From: Andrew Shellshear <andrews@cisra.canon.com.au>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:57:30 +1000
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-svg@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Chris Lilley wrote: > >> On Friday, July 21, 2006, 10:20:19 PM, Ian wrote: >> >> >>> Most of the disagreements do not make it clear what the argument of >>> the commentor is, >>> >> That would be the first link on each comment, which takes you directly >> to the unabridged and original archived comment. >> > > By that argument, you don't need any of the summaries. > The commenter's position is usually well-explained by their own words in their own emails (usually the last email of the thread). In cases where the working group disagrees with the commenter, we didn't send a further email saying "We disagree" once it's clear that further debate is pointless (ie. once everyone understands everyone else's positions, but still disagrees). In these cases, we need to summarise our position, and that's where we do it. > I am asking that the dispostion of comment take a neutral stance by > listing the positions of both the SVG WG and the commentor on any issue > that is marked as unresolved. > Personally, I don't think this is necessary, though I'm sure I could be persuaded otherwise. The last-call disposition document points very clearly to the arguments made by the commenters, and I would expect that the small technical audience who read it would choose to delve, especially in cases of disagreement. In other words, (for cases other than when the WG needs to summarise its position) I think I place lower importance on the Resolution than you do - the most important fact of the resolution is the colour; the wording is a hint, and the expectation is that the reader would consult the emails. I mean, you don't get a lot out of the document unless you read at least the initial comment anyway - the titles aren't always particularly informative! Having said that, of course we are trying to be accurate in summarising any disagreement. No doubt we'll talk about this in our next teleconference. Andrew S.
Received on Monday, 24 July 2006 17:40:54 UTC