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: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:54:47 +0200
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C3B574ED1492441FAA70DBFF7498F692@gmail.com>


On Monday, September 19, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> 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"?

I think it's "make work" (though I would have argued for this a few years ago). I think we should keep /TR/ for specifications that target user agents. It might also be too controversial to try to push a requirement document to REC independently of the specifications that meet those requirements. 

> > 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.]
Ok, lets see what PLH says. Thanks for your offer of help; it's very much appreciated. 
Received on Monday, 19 September 2011 14:55:19 GMT

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