W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-coremob@w3.org > February 2013

RE: Final draft of Coremob 2012

From: Suresh Chitturi <schitturi@rim.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 21:15:48 +0000
To: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>, "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
CC: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8B118C943801754098C9B36B567EABA3B0025A@XMB103ADS.rim.net>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tobie Langel [mailto:tobie@fb.com]
>Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 3:12 PM
>Subject: Re: Final draft of Coremob 2012
>On 2/1/13 1:03 PM, "Suresh Chitturi" <schitturi@rim.com> wrote:
>>>From: Tobie Langel [mailto:tobie@fb.com]
>>>Subject: Re: Final draft of Coremob 2012
>>Notice that there is a mismatch between the name of the report of the
>>title of the document.
>>Naming the title to "Specification" can be misleading, and a better
>>name would be "Final Community Group Report".
>That's a fair point, should be brought up at the CG process level, so good call
>copying Ian on this.
>>There were some discussions on this particular topic during the TPAC
>>and post TPAC, and I believe the conclusion from that is the same i.e.
>>not to use the term specification for CG deliverables.
>>Ian, can probably shed some light?:)
>The CG process talks about specifications all over the place, including in the
>Final Specification Agreement (FSA)[1]. Afaik, the terminology difference
>between rec track and non rec track specifications has been on the use of the
>term "standard" which is restricted to rec track work.
>Anyway, it don't have any objection renaming the spec if we do an errata
>release down the line.

Sounds good. Right this should be a sweeping change across the CGs, if/when formalized.

>[1]: http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/fsa-deed/

This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 21:16:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:48 UTC