Ian Hickson wrote: > All of these rejections -- for both the field types and the keywords > -- have been along lines that appear to me to be highly bureaucratic > and not at all in the best interests of the Web. It seemed at times > that the gatekeepers (plural: two separate people responded during the > test of the registry) are more interested in applying theoretical > policies than actually helping people either to avoid clashes with rel > values or to increase interoperability in this space. Well, I haven't time to follow all cited emails, just part of them. But in the conversation I have read it seems completely natural from "gatekeepers" to ask for reference to more stable and established document in /TR space then to editor's snapshots on dev.w3.org or whatwg.org. You can call it highly bureaucratic and standards work is sometimes really bureaucratic (but this is nothing compared to ISO ;-), but proper referencing is vital part of each standard text, including registration form for registry. Jirka -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jirka Kosek e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz ------------------------------------------------------------------ Professional XML consulting and training services DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing ------------------------------------------------------------------ OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member ------------------------------------------------------------------Received on Sunday, 15 August 2010 08:28:15 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 15 August 2010 08:28:17 GMT