Re: Point of order re traffic

On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 14:22, Dan Connolly wrote:
> e.g. please keep in mind that getting the last
> word in an email thread is not the point; the
> last word is in the document.
> ...
> A rule of thumb I like:
> If a thread goes back and forth three times without
> anybody suggesting textual changes to the document,
> something's wrong.

That's not a bad guideline, but insisting on that approach makes it
nearly impossible to question whether the document's intent is a good
idea in the first place.

I hear painful echoes of statements like "The XML Schema Working Group
will only accept comments which address particular details of the XML
Schema drafts, not comment which question the overall approach."

At least RFC 3205 is available as counterpoint to the discussion here,
informing the discussion of the wide-open definition of "the World Wide
Web" and point 2 of:
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!

Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 14:40:10 UTC