MODERATION [was: RE: Alternatives to the W3C (was Re: Alternatives to the W3C)]

Peter Murray-Rust peter at
Mon Jan 24 08:53:18 GMT 2000

At 05:07 PM 1/23/00 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
>At 08:06 PM 1/22/00 -0500, Didier PH Martin wrote:

[discussion about DOM in browsers snipped...]

It will be very useful to those of us trying to abstract this list if the
subjects can relate to the topics being discussed. Many of us get a lot of
messages and look to the subject line to know whether we should look at
them in detail. The present (hopefully not recursive) subject is not useful
- the discussion is (IMO) a useful one about whether browsers should
support the DOM or not.

Direct moderation often kills threads (this may, of course be a good thing
sometimes!), and the members of this list are asked to see if changes of
subject line may be valuable occasionally. In some areas (e.g. SAX2) it is
likely that tens/hundreds of postings can occur without much deviation - in
other areas the subject mutates and so needs re-identifying.

There has so far been a small positive feeling that moderation is
occasionally useful and that the constitution I suggested is a reasonable

This is a good time to remind people that they should NOT quote the list
signature. Some time ago we discussed whether the signature was valuable -
the recent removal and consequent increase in "unsubscribe"s showed that it
was. But one copy per posting - attached by the mailer - is all that is


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Unsubscribe by posting to majordom at the message
unsubscribe xml-dev  (or)
unsubscribe xml-dev your-subscribed-email at your-subscribed-address

Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list