W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > October 2014

Re: Snapshots (was: w3process-ISSUE-124)

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 14:45:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CADC=+jfeE5Aq_uaA519KJwzwFD61yvHjFt7HUq8-G2CE_RNS-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 10/03/2014 01:25 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>
>> BUT, snapshots are terrible for interoperability. Implementations
>> referencing old documents leads to implementation bugs, leads to lack of
>> compatibility, basically, snapshots for Web techs are actively harmful to
>> the goal of any standards organisation, namely, interoperalibily. So it's
>> critical that any standards organisation be really careful to not spread
>> confusion by having multiple versions of its specifications, or, if it
>> does, be exceedingly unambiguous in its labeling to make sure that nobody
>> in their right mind, other than patent lawyers and government officials,
>> would ever consider referencing such a specification.
>
>
> FYI, Anne and I have been having a discussion on this topic, and seem to be
> converging on a different conclusion:
>
> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2014/09/16/The-URL-Mess#c1412200341
>
> As a part of my reply to that comment, I state:
>
> "In my opinion, we need to start by looking at the part that is often left
> out of the “Living Standard” discussions.  It is not one-dimensional choice
> between up-to-date and stale.  The problem space is actually
> multi-dimensional.  Proven vs experimental is another dimension."
>
> If you scroll back to an earlier part of that page, you will see the
> following statement by me:
>
> "While I am optimistic that at some point in the future the W3C will feel
> comfortable referencing stable and consensus driven specifications produced
> by the WHATWG, it is likely that some changes will be required to one or
> both organizations for this to occur"
>
> I'm actively working to see what changes would be required, and intend to
> report back when that effort is complete.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>


While it is potentially just adding fuel to a fire, I will mention
that as a developer, I like the idea that WHATWG had with
implementation status flags on sections and I feel like that helps
what you're saying Sam.

-- 
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 18:46:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:12 UTC