W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: WebIDL: how to address the various audiences and constraints?

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:16:34 +0200
Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-script-coord@w3.org, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Mike Smith <mike@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Message-Id: <1D92B89C-B3FE-4784-8186-9EAC498E430A@berjon.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
I'd like to extend a big welcome to all our friends who didn't know  
about W3C Process, and didn't want to either!

On Sep 30, 2009, at 13:45 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2009, at 3:40 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> To the best of my knowledge you won't find anything in Process  
>> stating what maturity levels you can reference; it's a PubRules  
>> thing. PubRules says:
>> - "In general, documents do not advance to Recommendation with  
>> normative references to W3C specifications that are not yet  
>> Recommendations."
>> - To transition to PR you should check that you're only referencing  
>> PR+ specifications.
>> - To transition to CR you should check that you're only referencing  
>> PR+ specifications.
> It's a requirement to reference only PR+ specifications to enter CR?  
> That doesn't sound right. It would make it very hard to ever get to  
> CR with a spec that has a significant dependency chain of new specs,  
> and would make mutual references completely impossible.

I'm well aware of that  don't shoot the messenger. It's documented  

"Does this specification have any normative references to W3C  
specifications that are not yet Proposed Recommendations?"


That's from the Transition Guide, pointed to as part of PubRules.

> I can find historical counter-examples:
> DOM 3 LS entered CR on Nov 7, 2003, and it referenced DOM 3 Core  
> which at the time was a WD and entered CR on the same day. Selectors  
> Level 3 entered CR in November 2001 (it later went back to WD) and  
> it cited multiple Working Drafts normatively.

I know, there are many more. I wouldn't be surprised if the Two Steps  
Behind rule (which I do find a bit lax to be honest) was something  
that was agreed to in a Director's Call for one given document and  
somehow percolated into tradition.

> We should probably seek input from the Team on the actual rules on  
> this.

Yup. Doug? Mike?

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 12:17:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:43 UTC