On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:02:52 +0100, Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com> wrote: > 1) The XBL spec's references section needs to distinguish between > normative and informative references. It does. > 2) Normative references represent an indirect inclusion of a different > specification. In most cases, it is not appropriate for W3C > specifications to normatively reference specifications that get changed > at the whim of the authors and/or which do not have an associated patent > policy. (I think > that's the thrust of Dean's email.) Do you have a pointer? > 3) It might be OK to reference the HTML5 spec as published by the WhatWG > as an *informative* reference (particularly as a temporary editing > solution), but it would be better if the features from the WhatWG's > HTML5 spec were > submitted to the W3C, discussed in appropriate W3C working groups for > possible inclusion in W3C specs, and then have the XBL spec reference the > relevant W3C specs informatively (or normatively if a required feature in > XBL is defined within the other W3C spec). As far as I can tell this is just your opinion. I agree, and I expect it will happen in due course, but I don't see why the reference would have to removed for now because of this. > 4) If there is a need to recognize and congratulate the WhatWG for its > HTML5 work somehow, then it makes sense to do this recognition within an > acknowledgements section rather than the main body of the spec or the > normative part of references section. That's not what the reference is for. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2007 23:05:16 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:21 GMT