W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 20:54:15 +0200
Message-ID: <4E651AD7.8090605@gmx.de>
To: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
CC: Jarred Nicholls <jarred@extjs.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On 2011-09-05 16:13, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> ...
> Most don't, in my experience. Specially those from other consortia. They love cling the dated specs and then pretend they are somehow more stable then the Editor's Draft. It's simply nonsense, but the W3C Process document seems to codify this.
>> bleeding edge quite often. It's a game of "who can have the latest and greatest first and the best".
>   Not always so. Other industries believe that having a stable reference point will cut down their interop issues (specially for environments where it's difficult to update software). I know, how ridiculous and illogical is that?!
> ...

Well, dated and immutable specs *indeed* are more stable. If you need 
"stability" as in "what it says today it will say tomorrow as well" then 
dated snapshots are the right thing to use.

I do see that it's a problem when people use outdated specs; but maybe 
the problem is not the being "dated", but how they are published. As far 
as I can tell, there's not nearly as much confusion on the IETF side of 
things, where Internet Drafts actually come with an Expiration Date.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 18:54:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT