W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > July 2014

Re: CfC: Request transition of HTML5 to Candidate Recommendation

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:59:18 +0200
Message-ID: <53C79E76.2090604@w3.org>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
Hi Roy,

On 17/07/2014 00:19 , Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> On 16/07/2014 20:09 , Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> That is not a stable link, let alone a stable document.  Did you read it
>>> with CSS on?  I don't see why you are refusing to publish it as a WG product
>>> first before calling for CR.
>> I am not aware of any group having done that, ever. I'm not even
>> sure  I understand what you're asking for.
> I think that I come from the time when W3C process was actually followed
> because that's what was agreed to by the consortium members.

If you are aware of specific process violations I encourage you to point 
them out with specific references to the Process document. If not, I 
would encourage you to refrain from casting aspersions.

> All you have to do is send the editor's draft to the Team to publish the
> technical content as a WD (or as LCWD), replacing the current document in
> TR space, before asking the working group to claim that the document has
> been reviewed by the public and determined to be CR-mature and stable.
> The side-effect of doing so is that the links in your issues that claim to
> have fixed something noted in LC will actually point to a document that
> has that fix, the version links at the top of the document will actually
> reflect what changes have been made since LC, and the status of this
> document section will not be absurdly incorrect.

If I apply some liberal amounts of exegesis you seem to be requesting 
that instead of providing a document which the group can assess to 
determine if it should be the next CR, we instead publish a new WD for 
the sole purpose of having the group assess whether it should be a CR next.

If that is indeed what you are proposing, it seems like a request to add 
overhead to a process that already has too much of it, with no clearly 
stated benefit. Furthermore, since the group needs to approve the SotD 
material for CR, it would appear to suffer from potential infinite 
regress since a document published as a WD can't possibly have the CR 

> The move from last WD to CR is supposed to be handled by the Pub team
> automatically after Director approval -- there is no need for the WG
> to review a make-believe CR published on some other website with a
> false date and bad links, since there are not supposed to be any substantive
> changes between the WD and CR.  If there are, it is a publication error
> that can be immediately fixed.

That may be your preference, but it does not reflect the mode of 
operation of this group. It does not, either, violate the process in any 
way. Since your preferred approach represents more work in exchange for 
benefits that, from what you have listed, strike me as at best of an 
aesthetic nature, I see no reason to change.

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 09:59:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:36 UTC