>Now that the 2.0 spec is pretty much in place, I wonder if it's time
>re-examine our agenda at a higher level, to see if there is a consensus
>about what should be near the top, and why?
>
>I am going to put together a balloting web page for submission of
>agenda items and dynamic balloting that I hope may help us to assign
>priorities to our discussion.
========
Please!
I've been apprehensive for some months that all manner of
partially-discussed suggestions that were clearly not "2.0" were simply
deferred to 3.0. As such, 3.0 then becomes "everything that didn't make it
into 2.0", as opposed to a deliberate, designed choice of the most
important features the Web is now missing.
As Stu mentions, we've got representation on this list from all manner of
professional communities, and we need to capitalize on that strength.
I suggest that for an idea to make it onto the 3.0 Content List, we have a
comparative review and discussion of at least these kinds of
considerations: (1) what communities are served? (2) how many people are
affected? (3) how critical is the feature to the user community(s)? (4) is
there a viable work-around within Web capabilities that are already
deployed? (5) does the feature "break" the basic Web/SGML/HTML models? (6)
how hard is it to code? (7) can we follow suit with any existing Standard?
(8) ____ (fill in your suggestions here!).
And, ultimately, _some_ ideas will need to wait for "3.1" or such... and
the idea's originators won't be pleased.
For my part, I vote for "need" driven features, as opposed to "cute".
=============
Larry Jackson