- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 01:45:04 -0400
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- CC: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, public-i18n-core@w3.org
Hi, Martin- I'm still not sure I agree. I do appreciate your points, but my experience of cross-posting has not been as positive. If people think that that is best practice, I'm willing to follow it. A few comments, inline... Martin Duerst wrote (on 9/21/08 1:21 AM): > At 06:52 08/09/18, Doug Schepers wrote: > >>* The Tracker for that other list will mistake SVG issues and actions as >>belonging to that WG's Tracker. > > If that other list has a tracker. I18N lists don't. CSS does. > Also, if that's a problem, then the trackers shoud be fixed. Agreed. But I doubt that the overworked Systems Team has the resources to do this anytime in the next few months. > [identifying issues by URIs, in true Web Architecture fashion, anybody?] That would be rather unwieldy. A nice thing about Tracker is that it can pick up ACTION and ISSUE keywords in the subject line of the email, decreasing the likelihood that the identifier is trimmed, and the email is not picked up by Tracker. Putting URIs in the subject line is not tenable. I think something like SVG-ISSUE-# or CSS-ACTION-# would suffice. But again, it would have to be implemented, and that doesn't solve the problem in the immediate timeframe. >>Our tracker is publicly visible, so you can always track the progress of >>all issues: >> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/products/11 > > That's fine for passive issue tracking, but does not work for discussions. What's wrong with having the discussion on www-svg? Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Sunday, 21 September 2008 05:45:39 UTC