> > > The disposition of comments is at:
> > > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/xbl2/disposition-
of-comments
> >
> > Thanks for the pointer.
> >
> > That would be good if the WG could prepare an HTML version will
help certainly
> > during the transition call.
>
> Since the disposition of comments isn't even read by anyone these
days [1]
> it isn't clear to me that the disposition of comments is worth
doing at
> all, let alone in HTML, especially given how much more work
maintaining
> the document as an HTML file would be compared to maintaining a
simple
> text file.
>
>
> [1] See, e.g. SVG 1.2's disposition of comments, where the
"Director's
> Responses" were actually written by the same person who chaired
the group
> in question, and which was never even looked at by the Director
before the
> specification went to CR.
That's an unusual interpretation of existential/universal
qualification: you're claiming that all humans are male because you
saw one human in the mirror this morning. I expect more valid logic
than that from you in arguments :)
Regardless, two wrongs don't make a better spec. Steve Bratt requests
that the disposition of comments are an HTML file with at least the
following for each comment:
- whether the comment was accepted or rejected clearly marked
- a link to the official Working Group response(s)
- a link to the acknowledgment of that response from the committer,
if it exists
- if rejected, a justification for why and links to relevant discussion
- whether the comment has a formal objection against it
Do you think this is an unnecessary burden for specifications? It
seems reasonable to me.
Converting your existing disposition into something that meets the
requirements above appears as if it would be easy to automate.
Dean
