On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Matthew> personally am particularly interested in #89867, which has > Matthew> been turned into an amendment, but hasn't had any sort of > Matthew> discussion or acceptance. > > Since the web browsers have not implemented the requisite > changes, this proposal is unlikely to be accepted unil they do.
Browsers? Have I gone completely nuts, or was this proposal to get web servers to export a new directory hierarchy, /usr/share/images/, as http://localhost/images/? OK, I can see why it might be an issue - it would probably be nice to be able to access images from places other than localhost. But it's still not a *browser* issue, surely? > Matthew> I for one would like to see the amendment part of policy, > Matthew> and see no reason why it shouldn't be accepted. > > Because any package which follows the proposal would be buggy, > since those images shall not actually be accessible. Based on the proposal's use of http://localhost/, or some other criteria? Also, I've noticed recent discussion on teams that are seriously short of manpower, and -policy editors was one of the groups that came up. Would you and Julian like more help? I'm not exactly a policy lawyer (might be an advantage <g>) but I'm keen to help, since I think that a tight, well-written, and up-to-date policy is a necessity for a large, diverse community like Debian. Not a big stick to beat people with (after all, this is fun we're dealing with here) but rather something that people can look to for a definitive answer. Perhaps you guys are coping fine, but I have noticed a rather... spurtish (is that the word?) trend in policy lately. Would more editorial staff help that? -- Matthew Palmer, Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org
