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

Re: [widgets] Proposal to publish Widget Requirements and Widget Landscape docs as Working Group Notes; deadline Sep 23

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:08:15 -0400
Message-ID: <4E7730AF.9030605@nokia.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <marcoscaceres@gmail.com>
CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Marcos,

On 9/16/11 10:14 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On Friday, 16 September 2011 at 20:04, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> Marcos, All,
>> To clearly state that WebApps' work on the Widget Requirements and
>> Widget Landscape documents has ended, I propose they be published as
>> Working Group Notes:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-land/
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-reqs/
> I think only the requirements should be published, because it was actually pretty useful in informing the standards development process. It's actually a pretty good document, if I do say so myself :)

FYI, there is some precedence for publishing Requirements docs as 
Recommendations (e.g. OWL UCs and Reqs) . If we want to go that route, 
it would presumably mean publishing a LC, skipping CR (not applicable 
for this spec) and then going to PR and REC. WDYT? Too much "make work"?

> The landscape document was just created to inform the standardisation process of what was considered best practice at the time. If it's a W3C requirement that it be published as a WG Note, then it should be published as is (i.e., I don't wanna do any work on it unless I really have to).

I don't feel real strongly here (and I will check with PLH on the 
publishing requirements). Publishing a WG Note does make a clear 
statement that work on the spec has stopped. We could also update the 
SotD which is quite old (e.g. still points to the appformats lists). 
[BTW, I would be willing to help with the edits.]

Received on Monday, 19 September 2011 12:08:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:34 UTC