Re: Put Editor's draft on TR page, not heartbeat formal publications -> RE: Evaluating policies; pubrules

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:41:13 +0100, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com> wrote:

> ...there are countless examples in software, particularly in the
> open-source world--where the development process also happens publicly--,
> of versioning schemes solving this kind of problems quite elegantly.
>
> One of which I particularly like has even been specified here:
> http://semver.org/
>
> Like most of the node community, I've been using SemVer for the past
> couple of years, and frankly, it's works really well.
>
>
> Couldn't we imagine something similar? Or is there resistance to using
> versioning tools for spec writing?

There has been some significant resistance to versioning instead proposing  
the "living standard model".

> Recommendation status would be akin to SemVer's 1.0.

So the first W3C HTML5 draft would be, in such a model, HTML 5.0.0?

> Editor's draft would follow a similar path to the pre-launch SemVer
> notation: breaking changes would get minor update (e.g. from 0.2.0 to
> 0.3.0), non-breaking changes would get patch updates. Minor and patch
> updates could be pushed to /tr immediately. The editor could go crazy on
> the bleeding-edge spec without affecting anyone yet the spec in /tr would
> be continuously updated.

This last bit is something that I think is crystallising as the common  
statement of a goal.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 09:19:39 UTC