Comments on: Opinions needed: Three-day urgent request

By: CW

CW — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:18:05 +0000

Looking forward to the coming issues of C&I!

By: walt

walt — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:28:26 +0000

Well, that one’s definitely doable, with or without new terms added. Thanks to all of you so far; I’ll continue to take comments for another two days.

By: Pete

Pete — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:09:52 +0000

Walt,

CW’s idea seems the best to me. The glossary as was looks interesting, but I’d find you looking at some selected parts of them and how they have changed- including ones you wouldn’t now include, and why- more interesting.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:01:34 +0000

I’d certainly read it, Walt.

But. I have no strong opinion one way or the other and, thus, the best I can say is put your time where you want/need.

Besides. I have your newest book to get started on.

By: walt

walt — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:06:45 +0000

That’s worth a lot, actually: I’d toyed with that idea, but wasn’t sure whether it was worthy. That might make a reasonable hook for the issue.

(For the record: I also asked this question on the lightly-populated LSW Meebo room and have two votes in favor of doing the glossary…)

By: CW

CW — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:02:29 +0000

Hi Walt, for what it’s worth I think it would be interesting if you took some of the topics you wrote about in that issue and looked at how they (or should that be your thoughts about them) have changed over the intervening years. Like RSS, for instance.