Re: c.i.w3 instead of mailing list

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Oct 93-present
• Next message: Tony Sanders: "Re: request for new forms submission consensus "
• Previous message: Tim Berners-Lee: "libwww v2.12: Authorization - aware "
• Maybe in reply to: Susan M Coghlan: "Re: c.i.w3 instead of mailing list"

X-Delivered: at request of secret on dxcern.cern.ch
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 14:09:04 +0100
From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@www3.cern.ch>
Message-id: <9310111309.AA00832@www3.cern.ch>
To: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
Subject: Re: c.i.w3 instead of mailing list
Reply-To: timbl@nxoc01.cern.ch

I hope that the www-talk reliability is improved now that we are
exploding on machine which has a newer version of sendmail.
I send out a message asking about duplicates and noone said
they got it twice.

I am very open to puttting up new listserv software, if there is
an accepted secure version.  Suggestions please.  I'm less
inclined to move it to Kansas because of the general disruption,
forwarding of things, etc, though I appreciate the offer.
Whatever we use we will have to add the mail URL document server
to it.

Unfortunately a RARE/EARN guide to network information gave
www-talk-request as somewhere to go for "more information" on WWW!
So Arthur is checking that new subscribers who use that human addess
really want developer chat.

I would suggest that c.i.w should get a ".programmer" subgroup,
but that we keep www-talk for the core developers.  Casual
people dropping in should pass by the newgroups.

I TOTALLY agree with Bill that we need a good annotation system
 and we can dispense with the whole works.  I think we are very
 close.
 

I would also suggest that we create two mailing lists
for the discssion of HTTP and HTML specifically.
This is to keep the discussions focussed, to make it clear to
those who are involved in the discussion of the standards-to-be
that they have got the right forum.  I would see those groups
as being either IETF working groups or the equivalent if the IESG
aren't interested in giving them than name.  They would be  
specifically aimied at getting the specs buttoned down and
discussing implications, interpretations, etc.
Of course, alternatives would be comp.protocols.http and
comp.text.sgml.html, but I think mailing lists would be more
appropriate.


What do you think?

Tim BL