W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: Call for Consensus - Selectors API to Candidate Rec

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:52:25 +0100
Cc: "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>, "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9A168396-17FA-4E4E-B30D-ADD160C86069@berjon.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
On Feb 17, 2009, at 12:30 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:26:16 +0100, Cameron McCormack  
> <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
>> Charles McCathieNevile:
>>> If anyone objects to this approach (which saves some administrative
>>> work and some time), please speak up...
>>
>> Web IDL is still a WD.  At some point before Rec, I guess selectors- 
>> api
>> would need to block on Web IDL progressing.  What point should that  
>> be?
>
> PR? There does not actually seem to be a requirement in the W3C  
> Process document that e.g. a Recommendation cannot normatively  
> reference a Working Draft by the way... (Not that it would be a very  
> good situation to be in.)

It's not ideal, but you can be clear on the fact that you're  
referencing a specific (dated) WD of WebIDL (so that the  
interpretation of the IDL you use is without ambiguity) and should  
inconsistencies arise in later WebIDL drafts you can issue errata (so  
long as they actually have no impact on the implementation of your Rec).

As far as I can find in the Process, the only document you're not  
allowed to reference is a Rescinded Recommendation. I think that the  
referencing work in progress rule is just a general best practice but  
that you can get away with it if you show that you're smart about it  
and planning for potential issues.

On the other hand, applying pressure to finish WebIDL could be cool :)

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 11:53:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:30 GMT