W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Objection to publishing DOM Parsing and Serialization (was Re: CfC: publish LCWD of DOM Parsing and Serialization; deadline December 3)

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 09:42:40 -0500
Message-ID: <52A333E0.3050901@nokia.com>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
CC: "public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org" <public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org>
[ + IanJ; Bcc public-w3process since this thread is an instance of 
issue-71; (see 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013OctDec/0824.html> for 
the head of this thread) ]

Ian, Yves,

Please explain why W3C staff insist the following information (that some 
WebApps consider "substantive") in the DOM Parsing and Serialization ED 
must be removed from the document  before it can be published as a 
Technical Report (and please provide the URL of the relevant `process 
doc/rules` that substantiates your rationale):

[[
<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/raw-file/tip/index.html>

WHATWG Living Standard:
    http://domparsing.spec.whatwg.org/
]]

-Thanks, AB

On 12/6/13 2:04 PM, ext James Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com 
> <mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com>> wrote:
>
>
>         Even worse is the removal of the reference to the source
>         specification, given that you know that this is a contentious
>         subject in this WG.
>
>
>     Both Travis and I supported keeping that information in the
>     boilerplate. The W3C Staff told us it must be removed before the
>     LC could be published as at TR. (FYI, I filed a related Issue
>     against the TR publication rules
>     <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/71>. I think
>     the public-w3process list is an appropriate place to discuss the
>     Consortium's publication rules.)
>
>
> If that's the requirement from the Team to publish as TR, then I 
> object to publishing as a TR until the requirements are fixed.  If and 
> when the publishing rules are fixed then we can consider proceeding again.
>
> The spec text as currently exists is actively harmful since it forks 
> the living standard without even having a reference to it.
>
> - James
Received on Saturday, 7 December 2013 14:49:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:09 UTC