Re: [datatracker-rqmts] Community Datatracker draft -02

Tero Kivinen <> Tue, 23 November 2010 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AC5628C0CE for <>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 06:00:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.452
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.452 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KNoCxkc7NMgy for <>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 06:00:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF49A3A694D for <>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 06:00:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oANE14Z7016814 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:01:04 +0200 (EET)
Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by (8.14.3/8.12.11) id oANE12FR024637; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:01:02 +0200 (EET)
X-Authentication-Warning: kivinen set sender to using -f
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:01:02 +0200
From: Tero Kivinen <>
To: "Jim Schaad" <>
In-Reply-To: <009501cb8ab3$c3b5ed10$4b21c730$>
References: <069201cb84a5$f3600e60$da202b20$> <> <001f01cb8541$cbe593e0$63b0bba0$> <p06240802c90f9c1d813c@[]> <003101cb8a17$6faeaaf0$4f0c00d0$> <p0624082fc910b3a4d80c@[]> <009501cb8ab3$c3b5ed10$4b21c730$>
X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.4.1
X-Edit-Time: 9 min
X-Total-Time: 10 min
Cc:, 'Paul Hoffman' <>
Subject: Re: [datatracker-rqmts] Community Datatracker draft -02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:00:16 -0000

> > >1.  Is there perhaps a requirement for some type of mathematics of the
> > >lists?   We currently have unions - i.e. make me a list of lists.  I
> don't
> > >know that I can think of any good reason to have intersections (i.e. in
> > >all of the following lists), but I can think that the subtraction
> > >operation might be very useful.  I care about everything that this
> > >working group does EXCEPT for the following documents.
> > 
> > That seems pretty obscure and would have a difficult interface.

I do not think it is going to be any more obscure than having union of
two lists would be. I.e. if you have a way to take list1 and list2 and
generate new list3 which is union of those two lists, I do not really
see that big difference if there is a way to make new list by
substracting list2 from list1.

User interface could simply be:

	List A: [                         ]
	List B: [                         ]
	Operation: ( ) Union ( ) Intersection ( ) Substraction

Where the lists are list ids (or urls or whetever) and operation is

Those people who really want to get such lists usually do understand
enough to make use of such features.

In some working groups there charter items which I am not that
interested in, and I would like to create list having drafts in that
WG except those relating charter item x (which would mean it would be
nice to have WG chair keeping up list of drafts per charter item).