W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Blocker for PR: links to HTML5 spec

From: Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 23:32:32 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTik7BqQLHX5B_bXn3JUeu8rvZHuJpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
   Philippe and I sync'ed up after the F2F meeting last Friday and we've
decided to resolve these references
and making the spec (mostly) self-contained. I am going over the references
and see

   - if it's a concept, we can leave the reference as it is.
   - if it's a process, we will keep a snap shot of the referred section in
   the current draft.

  References to the WebIDL seem fine so we will leave them.

  The exercise will probably take a while... I will try to get it done by


On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com> wrote:

>     Apology for letting this slip through earlier.
>   Philippe's proposal of creating a reference section and pointing out its
> dependency sounds good.
> Some other options I can think of so far:
>   1) Try to see if there is any stabler versions of the reference we can
> find and move over there. (Though by looking at both
> dev.w3.org and www.w3.org/TR, I don't expect we can find much.) And we
> leave the rest of them as they are. It not the most
> common practice but some RECs do refer to other less stable specs, the
> Mobile Web Application Best Practice<http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-mwabp-20101214/> as
> one of them.
>    @Philippe, is it a hard requirement somewhere for a REC to point to
> other RECs only? I am not able to find a pointer to that in
> the Process Document <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/>.
>   2) If there is indeed concern of moving to REC with the less stable
> reference from this WG, then maybe we can stay on PR until
> we find ourselves comfortable moving forward. We can continue with bug
> fixes and other stuff at the mean time.
>  3) This might get me burn but I will bring it up anyway for the sake of
> "creativity"... :-) The WHATWG version of the spec seems
> to be more mature at this time and we can use some of those as references
> as well. Still though, it's evolving as well.
>    Among all these, option 2) seems to be a reasonable approach if we are
> OK with staying in PR for a while.
> cheers,
> Zhiheng
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 17:55 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:44:28 +0100, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 17:28 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> > >> Also, I'm not really convinced that watering down all conformance
>> > >> criteria is really the best approach here. If we care about
>> > >> interoperability that
>> > >> is.
>> > >
>> > > Why would we water down the conformance criteria? I don't think I
>> > > suggested that. We already have tests and 2 implementations in fact
>> and
>> > > this discussion should have no impact on that at least.
>> >
>> > If you remove HTML as a dependency many important aspects will become
>> > non-normative or undefined, in effect, right? Non-normative and
>> undefined
>> > material cannot be tested.
>> Ah, but we would add the necessary bits in the specification before
>> removing the normative dependency as part of an appendix. I don't know
>> if that's feasible, thus my question to Zhiheng.
>> Philippe
Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 06:33:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:30 UTC