W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2012

Re: Change Proposal for ISSUE-177, was: ISSUE-177 ietf-id-wip: Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:19:23 +0100
Message-ID: <4F18509B.7030103@gmx.de>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: HTML WG LIST <public-html@w3.org>
On 2011-10-09 15:59, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-09-28 01:47, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> ...
>
> Here's the Change Proposal:
>
> SUMMARY
>
> The HTML5 spec currently cites IETF Internet Drafts just like any other
> document.
>
> However, Internet Drafts come with the disclaimer:
>
> Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
> and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
> time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
> material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
>
> There's no reason for the HTML5 spec not doing this.
>
> RATIONALE
>
> In addition to the simple fact described above, marking drafts as such
> will help reviewers better understand that the referenced document is
> work-in-progress, helping preventing things from progressing on the Rec
> track while having a normative reference to a document that's not suited
> as normative reference. See <http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/#sniff>.
>
> DETAILS
>
> -- BEGIN DIFF
> 72437c72437
> < 'about' URI scheme</a></cite>, J. Holsten, L. Hunt. IETF.</dd>
> ---
>  > 'about' URI scheme</a></cite>, J. Holsten, L. Hunt. IETF. Work in
> Progress.</dd>
> 72641c72641
> < B. H&ouml;hrmann. IETF.</dd>
> ---
>  > B. H&ouml;hrmann. IETF. Work in Progress.</dd>
> 72677c72677
> < <dd><cite><a
> href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-websec-origin">The Web
> Origin Concept</a></cite>, A. Barth. IETF.</dd>
> ---
>  > <dd><cite><a
> href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-websec-origin">The Web
> Origin Concept</a></cite>, A. Barth. IETF. Work in Progress.</dd>
> -- END DIFF
>
>
> IMPACT
>
> 1. Positive Effects
>
> IETF Internet Drafts referenced as specified by their publisher.
> References to things that are work-in-progress become more easy to spot.
>
> 2. Negative Effects
>
> None.
>
> 3. Conformance Classes Changes
>
> None.
>
> 4. Risks
>
> None.
>
>
> REFERENCES
>
> None.

In the above CP, the third change (draft-ietf-websec-origin) can be 
removed; that Internet Draft has been published as RFC 6454 (I have 
opened <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15630> to get 
this updated; I'll assume this is non-controversial).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 17:20:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:43 GMT