Hi Gregory,
I would also add that the discussions surrounding that page[1] was
directly responsible for the flow of conversations that then led to
both these wiki issue pages: 1) required role attribute for embedded
content; and 2) UA norms and DOM interface access for media metadata
properties. All of these issues are of course interlinked, but it is
remarkable how most of them have still not been incorporated into the
draft (in one form or another) after almost a year now (nor has there
been any substantive criticism of these proposals; they've simply been
ignored).
Take care,
Rob
[1]: <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/LongdescRetention>
[2]: <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/EmbeddedContentRoleAndEquivalents>
[3]: <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/UANormAndDOMForMediaPropeties>
On Jun 5, 2008, at 10:23 PM, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
aloha, rob!
you bring up a very good point in regards bugzilla -- should bugzilla
be reserved solely for logging and tracking bugs in the WG's drafts --
for example, an error in sample code, failure to mark an attribute as
globally applicable, grammatical and spelling errors, and the like?
i personally agree that the wiki was and is intended to facilitate
discussion in detail on issues, and i, as well as other WG members,
have used it to log detailed discussions and comparative proposals;
perhaps the "best" example of the wiki serving such a purpose is
the wiki page on "Equivalent Content for Static Images", located at
the (mis-leading) URI
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/LongdescRetention
a quick review of the "info" page for this wiki page shows
contributions
from WG members as diverse as: rob burns, lachlan hunt, james
graham, ben
boyle, charles mccathienevile, joshue o connor, andrew sidwell, jon
barnett, henri sivonen, scott lewis, sander tekelenburg, as well as
myself (note: the preceding contributors' list is in no pariticular
order)
in any event, clarification on use of tracker, the WG's wiki and
bugzilla -- and how they interact, intersect and complement each
other would be of utmost use to the entire HTML WG
gregory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.
-- Arthur Bloc
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Rosmaita - [EMAIL PROTECTED] AND [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/
United Blind Advocates for Talking Signs (UBATS): http://ubats.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Original Message -----------
From: Robert J Burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steven Faulkner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Michael(tm) Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris
Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Laura Carlson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:27:42 +0200
Subject: Re: tracker already has ternary state - RAISED
Hi Gregory,
I like everything you proposed here. I would only add two things.
1) It would be nice to have issue-tracker issues handled by WG
member review like the sections of the draft. This way we ask
at least two WG members to volunteer to review each issue and
provide a summary report on their opinions on it. If need be
the chairs could also appoint someone to review if the chairs
felt the volunteers didn't provide enough balance.
2) I'm not sure your proposal requires bugzilla at all then. I
think the Wiki actually serves as a very good tool situated
between the issue-tracker on one side and the [WINDOWS-1252?]WG’s
email, IRC
and telecon deliberations/discussions. I've tried to
consistently setup each of these issues I've raised to provide
a quick mailto link to contribute to the WG discussion and
another quick email search link to find the messages with that
same subject. This provides a nice way to link the wiki to the
email discussions (I'm thinking of trying to do something
similar for IRC). Email and IRC provide a nice persistent log of
the discussions while the Wiki pages can evolve to reflect the
feedback and criticisms form the WG. The Issue-tracker then
provides a nice mechanism to stay on top of what's going on.
Other than those two points, I fully support your suggestion.
Take care,
Rob
On Jun 5, 2008, at 9:02 PM, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
aloha, josh!
my open question to/request of the chairs -- which i made sure was
logged
in IRC at today's telecon -- is as follows: when one opens an issue,
it is
not marked as "OPEN", but rather as "RAISED" -- can the chairs in
their
capacity as chairs, therefor, issue a formal statement to the effect
that:
* RAISED equals PROPOSED - proposal will be discussed on list and in
at least 1 telecon before marked as OPEN or quashed
* OPEN equals UNDER ACTIVE CONSIDERATION BY WG
* CLOSE equals Editors/Chairs consider issue resolved - note that
issues should be closed only after being addressed at a telecon, so
that if there is dissent over the resolution, it can be logged and
objectors should be given an opportunity to convince the chairs that
the issue should not be closed
or provide the rationale for not considering "RAISED" issues as
"PROPOSED"?
bugzilla could then be reserved for micro-issues and detailed
discussion
thereof, thus avoiding the bifurcation of feedback streams that
using
bugzilla to propose issues would cause...
gregory
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils,
as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them
with others. -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Rosmaita, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Original Message -----------
From: Joshue O Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Steven Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Michael(tm) Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan Connolly
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Laura Carlson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[email protected], Robert Burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Gregory J.
Rosmaita"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:43:34 +0100
Subject: Re: discretion & the issue tracker (was Re: discretion in
adding
issues)
Steven Faulkner wrote:
Hi all,
Why can't there be a 'proposal tracker' implemented that is open
to
anyone in the working group to add proposals to, via a form
perhaps
that asks for certain information about the proposal, so it can
then
be evaluated and debated by WG members?
That sounds like a good idea to me also.
Cheers
Josh
------- End of Original Message -------
------- End of Original Message -------
