W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > February 2012

Re: "Living Standards"

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:24:21 +0100
Message-ID: <4F2BB5D5.30109@gmx.de>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
CC: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 2012-02-03 10:45, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, January 2, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>> Hallo,
>>
>> On Monday, 2 January 2012 at 17:18, Robin Berjon wrote:
>>> Having said that, it doesn't really matter if that anchor is "Edition 17" or "Commit deadbeef". The important thing is to put people in control of whether they want the bleeding edge or a sta(b)le version.
>>
>> Sure, people should be afforded privacy to do such unspeakable (or murderous) things behind closed doors. The problem I raise is when such things try to get forced on the open Web, as once happened with Widgets.
>
> Oh @$%#@! It happened again:(
>
> https://developer.tizen.org/doc.html
>
> (click on "Tizen Web API Reference" and then on "W3C Widget Specifications" or "WAC 2.0")
>
> The *outdated* versions specs were copy and pasted from the W3C Website and from the WAC site to the Tizen website.
> ...

Whether it's outdated or not is one of the things we argue about.

But anyway: if they did have copied the Editor's version, how exactly 
would that be better unless they have a mechanism to keep things up-to-date?
Received on Friday, 3 February 2012 10:24:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:07 UTC