Effective ways to comment on the HTML 2.0 spec

• Mail folder: html-archive
• Next message: Daniel W. Connolly: "[Dave Raggett: Re: HTML 2.0 Call for Review]"
• Previous message: Stu Weibel: "html-ig list is open for business"
• Reply: Terry Allen: "Re: Effective ways to comment on the HTML 2.0 spec"

Message-id: <9406101601.AA07757@ulua.hal.com>
To: html-ig@oclc.org
Subject: Effective ways to comment on the HTML 2.0 spec
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 11:01:16 -0500
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
Content-Length: 1366

I sent this to www-talk a while ago... It's worth repeating
here.

------- Forwarded Message

To: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Subject: Effective ways to comment on the HTML 2.0 spec
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <10922.771167038.1@austin2.hal.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 1994 08:03:59 -0500
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@austin2.hal.com>

Here are some more and less effective ways to comment on
the 2.0 spec:

* "I'd like to see HTML extended to include ..."
  This is out of the scope of the 2.0 effort. We're trying
  to be largely descriptive of current practice. www-talk
  is still an OK forum for these comments... Dave Ragget
  is always listening. But I have blinders on.

* "Here's a proposal for an HTML extension ... [proposed
  spec extension included]"
  I might have time to stick this in as a proposed feature.
  No guarantees.

* "In http:...., you wrote XXX, which is wrong. What
  actually happens is YYY"
  I'll try to address these, but this format doesn't
  save me any time -- it only creates work for me to do.

* "The http:.... node isn't quite right. Here's a replacement
  [or diffs] and a few test cases to demonstrate the
  subtleties"
  Bingo. You're nearly guaranteed to get your comments in
  if you submit them this way.

Thank you for your support.

Dan


------- End of Forwarded Message