W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > July 2008

Re: at risk features

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:14:13 -0400
To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
Cc: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <23425.1215116053@ubuhebe>

> I still do not like that wording because the reasons for marking several of t
> he
> different features as "at risk" have little to do with them being implemented
> .
> "Based of feedback" is a much more neutral and acceptable wording.

I'm fine with that, especially for this Last Call transition.  I may
want to push more for implementation-oriented wording at the next step
(which is Candidate Recommendation, the call for implementations).

    -- Sandro


> If we retain the present wording then I would insist on reexamining the reaso
> ns behind marking each particular feature as "at risk" so that only the featu
> res that truly depend on the availability of implementations would be marked 
> as such.
> 
> 
> 	--michael  
> 
> 
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:25:19 -0400
> Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > I updated the working a little bit.  I believe this is the formal definit
> ion 
> > > of what "at risk" means.
> > 
> > I see you changed 
> > 
> >     This feature is "at risk" and will be removed from this
> >     specification if not sufficiently implemented
> > 
> > to 
> > 
> >     This feature is "at risk" and may be removed from this specification
> >     based on implementation experience.  
> > 
> > which I'm fine with.  The governing language about this matter [1] is
> > reached by clicking on "at risk" in that message, but it's not 100%
> > clear. 
> > 
> > > Michael Kifer wrote:
> > > > I object to the current formulation of the At Risk notes.
> > > > What does it mean "if not sufficiently implemented"?
> > > > It is not sufficiently clear to me.
> > > > Also, features #1,2,3, in BLD and the ones in DTB have all different
> > > > reasons for being marked at risk.
> > 
> > Does Chris' re-wording solve the problem?   If not, can you be more
> > clear about what's unclear?   (sorry, but I can't figure out how to be
> > more clear from just this.)
> > 
> >      -- Sandro
> > 
> > 
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfi
> > 
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 20:15:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:50 GMT