Re: Re: Crossposting (Was: Re: Case of function names

Dimitre wrote:
> One could argue that the "poor people" (BTW, who decides which are
> "poor" and which are the "elite"? Who has sufficient reasons to
> proclaim them as the "elite"?) are affected only if there are
> examples of messages for help staying unanswered. If not, such
> segregation will be bad -- aren't the new XSLT and XPath languages
> for the "poor people" too? Isn't their feedback important?

Just in case anyone else misinterpreted me, when I said "poor people"
I meant it to express sympathy towards those who are not interested in
the discussion, but nevertheless have to put up with their mailboxes
being flooded because they're subscribed to this list. It was
certainly not intended as a value judgement against those who choose
not to subscribe to xsl-editors@xxxxxx or www-xpath-comments@xxxxxx,
for whatever reason.

I was worried by a recent mail that asked whether this was still the
place to ask questions - it made me think that people might be put off
the list because of the heavy discussion. Perhaps we could use a
prefix of [XPath 2.0] or [XSLT 2.0] or just [2.0] so that people can
filter out these messages more easily if they want to.

As far as making sure the comments are seen by WG members, I guess the
only option is to BCC to the relevant W3C list - that way the list
owner will never know we're actually cross-posting ;)

Cheers,

Jeni

---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list