- From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:26:56 +0200
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, W3C Public TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
Le 19/10/2016 à 08:14, Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit : > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote: >> >> >> Le 19/10/2016 à 05:29, David Singer a écrit : >>> >>> >>>> 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” >> >> >> yes but if the text to link to a reference section (Normative or >> informative). >> It is easier to maintain references, than looking into URL in the the text. > > > FWIW: the HTML reference is to the WHATWG version also, so we should > be consistent. Right. we should be consistent. The HTML reference to WHATWG version is the same issue. It should be also update. as I said earlier, if we start having diffs from the CG draft and the WG draft, it may be a nightmare to synchronize those documents by updating refs and other stuff for each TR publication. Thierry. > > Cheers, > Silvia. >
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2016 06:27:34 UTC