Effective ways to comment on the HTML 2.0 spec

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Apr 94-present
• Next message: Lewis Foti: "Re: Including files"
• Previous message: Alastair Aitken CLMS: "Why go w3"

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 15:06:51 +0200
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Message-id: <9406091304.AA10952@austin2.hal.com>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: connolly@hal.com
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Effective ways to comment on the HTML 2.0 spec
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Mime-Version: 1.0

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