confidentiality in W3C WGs
cbullard at hiwaay.net
Thu Sep 9 02:58:59 BST 1999
Lauren Wood wrote:
> I agree that technical reasons for why the spec is the way it is, and
> reasons for change, should be made public. Particularly when the
> issue is controversial, as this one is.
Right. Do it the OldeFashionedWay: Document by paragraph number the
text, the suggested edit to the text, the rationale for the technical
change, the submittor. the reason for accepting or rejecting the
change. There are some sage standards editors on this
list (Dr. Goldfarb? Dr. Newcomb?) who can provide a precise format
for this kind of document.
It really is that easy. We can't fix the W3C. We can't fix the
press. We can go our own way.... or we can state in earnest to
whatever authority can provide support that the need for clearly
documented public rationale for public utilities outweighs the
need for confidentiality.
Editing such documents before publishing them is good practice.
Publishing blow by blow summaries of meeting debates is bad practice.
There is plenty of experience in this community to explain those
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev