W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > March 2012

OIPF liaison letter (was Re: [profile] minutes - 12 March 2012)

From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:25:20 +0100
To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.wbe3gijp6ugkrk@giuseppep-x220>
Hi,
there was an action point on me to get feedbacks from the W3C process CG  
on the reference issue raised by the OIPF liaison letter.

I sent an email to the CG list asking for feedbacks.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2012Mar/0044.html

/g


On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:40:26 +0100, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>  
wrote:
>
> Liaison with OIPF
>
>     Opent IPTV Forum
>
>     giuseppe: open networks and managed network deployments
>     ... how to properly reference mostly WIP sources
>     ... How have other organizations addressed this problem
>     ... They are asking us for advice
>     ... a) reference specific version with date
>     ... Means regular review and update. This is a bit messy
>     ... b) reference current draft without a date
>     ... need to define a way of working to minimize changes
>     ... c) only reference proposed recommendation
>     ... d) delay any work until specs are at proposed
>     recommendations level
>
>     <kaz> [11]liaison letter (member-only)
>
>       [11]  
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-web-and-tv/2012Mar/att-0000/___Q_OIPF-AOL-SOL-227-R02-Liaison_5Fletter_5Fto_5FW3C_5Fon_5Fspecification_5Freferencing.PDF__
>
>     giuseppe: e) reference latest version and decide which version
>     to use later
>     ... f) define some profile that can be referenced directly and
>     keep track of change
>     ... g) automatically use latest version available at time of
>     publication
>     ... h) any other option?
>     ... Looking at 2D transforms, 3D transforms, HTML5 canvas, CSS
>     changes
>     ... Good to get feedback firsthand in this group
>     ... want to also get this out to other groups (e.g. process
>     group)
>     ... floor open for comments
>     ... Kaz mentioned this problem with other specs.
>
>     <kaz> [12]EPUB 3
>
>       [12] http://idpf.org/epub/30/spec/epub30-overview.html#references
>
>     Kaz: There is a similar case in EPUB 3
>     ... They used undated URL
>     ... This is a working draft specification
>     ... They need to change their URL if this changes
>
>     <kaz> [13]Geolocation spec
>
>       [13]  
> http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html#geolocation_interface
>
>     Kaz: Geolocation is another examples
>     ... Even though HTML5 spec is not stable, they will add note
>     within spec
>     ... The HTML5 spec will let them know when features are stable
>     ... Geolocation also refers to WEB IDL
>     ... They need to change the reference to WEB IDL - which has
>     changed a bit
>     ... Each section might change
>
>     giuseppe: one option is to use the section name rather than
>     number
>
>     kaz: it requires HTML5 or CSS3 editors to use name rather than
>     number references
>
>     giuseppe: glen on queue
>
>     <giuseppe> ack
>
>     glen: a couple comments
>     ... the official language on status of these documents
>     specifies inappropriate to refer to these other than as WIP
>     ... need to put WIP somewhere in reference
>     ... in the case of EPUB, the URLs are generic TR+shortname
>     reference that would not be required to change
>     ... would not anticipate process committee changing this
>     requirement
>     ... before doc is in CR stage it is questionable whether it
>     should be referenced at all
>     ... unlikely to get consensus on what "stable" means.
>     ... I would expect significant changes to HTML before PR status
>
>     giuseppe: People have different opinions, but useful to collect
>     examples of how others are handling the problem
>     ... we can collect a few of the best options.
>     ... could probably reduce the scope to a few possiblities
>
>     glenn: I would also follow up
>     ... in a recent interview with Jaffe
>     ... changes to accelerate the standards process
>     ... they should be looking at this problem and formulating
>     policy
>     ... we should pass any input we collect on to them
>
>     <corvoysier>
>     [14]http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57390399-264/jeff-jaffe-l
>     ights-a-fire-under-web-standardization/
>
>       [14]  
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57390399-264/jeff-jaffe-lights-a-fire-under-web-standardization/
>
>     giuseppe: it's going through us because the liaison was
>     established through us
>
>     glenn: I'm working with one standards group that decided to
>     indirectly reference them through html5 specification
>     ... This in turn has references to other specs
>     ... this reduced the number of open ended references
>
>     giuseppe: Will be an issue solved for basic DOM and some other
>     areas.
>     ... any other opinions?
>
>     jan: Really appreciate the insight that drafts should be
>     consistently referenced
>     ... That will help external bodies do references
>
>     <glenn> link on Jeff Jaffe discussing accelerating process et
>     al
>
>     <glenn>
>
>     giuseppe: We can run this through w3c management again before
>     responding to OIPF
>     ... I will draft first letter to them
>
>     kaz: thanks for the proposal
>     ... suggest we include PLH and Ralph
>
>     thx
>
>     giuseppe: people can reply on the list if they agree with my
>     conclusions
>     ... next point
>
-- 
Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software
Received on Monday, 19 March 2012 12:25:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 19 March 2012 12:25:59 GMT