- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:29:33 +0800
- To: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, W3C Public TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
> On Oct 18, 2016, at 18:42 , Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote: > > Simon, > If we start having diffs from the CG draft and the WG draft, it may be a nightmare to synchronize those documents for publication. > > For TR we can't use normative reference linking to unstable documents. > > I suggest you have a normative ref to W3C DOM4 and an informative ref to [WHATWG-DOM] and this would probably do the trick. It’s a hack, but OK. We could have a line in the text even saying “the formal spec. is at X but the version at Y may be more up to date” > > thierry > > > Le 18/10/2016 à 12:36, Simon Pieters a écrit : >> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:55:50 +0200, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> Simon, David, >>> >>> Looking at WebVTT Draft Community Group Report, 15 July 2016 >>> https://w3c.github.io/webvtt/ >>> >>> I see a normative reference to >>> [WHATWG-DOM] >>> Anne van Kesteren. DOM Standard. Living Standard. URL: >>> https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/ >>> >>> This normative reference could be a problem. >>> >>> could'nt you use instead W3C DOM4 >>> W3C Recommendation 19 November 2015 >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-dom-20151119/ >>> >>> >>> Thierry >> >> The TR versions could do that if referencing WHATWG specs is a problem. >> For the CG report I would like to reference the upstream, most >> up-to-date version of a given spec, rather than a stable but out-of-date >> spec that has issues that have been fixed in the upstream version. >> David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2016 03:29:57 UTC