W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: ACTION-95, ISSUE-65: Plan to publish a new WD of HTML-5

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:27:43 +0100
Message-ID: <4982497F.3030501@lachy.id.au>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2009, at 00:13 , Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> Robin Berjon wrote:
>>> In the spirit of tiptoeing around the situation some more, I'd like 
>>> to point out that Working Drafts are NEVER normative. Only 
>>> Recommendations are.
>>
>> While true, a Working Draft is ipso facto something that is intended 
>> to become a Recommendation if it gathers consensus.
> 
> As Karl explained, that is definitely not the case. Some WDs are taken 
> off track, others simply become Notes. Notes are informative. That 
> doesn't make them any less useful.

The fact that a WG may end up deciding to take a WD off the REC track 
and publish it as a NOTE, does not change the fact that a WD claiming to 
be normative was at least developed with the intention of reaching a 
REC.  In other words, the fact that the final outcome may differ from 
intent, does not change the intent.

> Would the chairs agree to a strawpoll about publishing the draft proviso 
> it has a warning label stating (as HÃ¥kon dutifully pointed out) that its 
> claims to normativity are subject to caution?

I believe it would be more prudent to instead initially publish the 
draft informatively as I believe there is less bureaucracy involved with 
moving a WD, or even a NOTE, to the REC track than there is in the 
reverse.  Additionally, it places the burden of proof upon those who 
argue that it should be put on the REC track, rather than on those of us 
against.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 00:28:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:00 UTC