W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: CfC: publish Widgets P&C as a "Proposed Edited Recommendation"; deadline August 8

From: Chaals McCathieNevile <w3b@chaals.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:52:15 +0200
To: "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-native-web-apps@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.wh13hdq022x22q@widsith-3.local>
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:17:42 +0200, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 25 July 2012 at 19:02, Chaals McCathieNevile wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:26:44 +0200, Arthur Barstow  
>> <art.barstow@nokia.com (mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com)>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Marcos would like to publish a "Proposed Edited Recommendation" [PER]  
>> > of the Widget Packaging and XML Configuration spec [REC] to
>> > incorporate the spec's errata and this is a Call for Consensus to do
>> > so.
>>
>> Currently I object. I would support the publication if:
>>
>> 1. It restored the pointer to an external errata document (Marcos is
>> clever, but there may still be errata) and
>
> Not sure what you mean here (and not just about being clever!:) )? There  
> is a pointer to errata…
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/errata.html
> It's right at the top of the document? What am I missing?

The new version says that it incorporates the errata there, but removes  
the statement that any further errata might be found at the same place. I  
suggest reinstating the text that was taken out, since there may be a need  
for errata on this document (personally I would prefer to see a new  
version, allowing for example internationalisation of more elements)

>> 2. It restored the status of the document to cover patent policy and  
>> where to send feedback and
>
> Ah, sorry… SoTD was from the editor's draft. I need to find a  
> boilerplate for a PER. I'm going to copy the one from XML 5th Ed., but  
> it's a bit of work so I'll do it RSN.

OK, please do.

>> 3. It fixes the normative references to include authors and point to
>> stable versions.
>
> I will only link to "stable" versions for normative references -  
> informative references don't matter.

I can live with that. However I note that it is useful to know what  
version of something that you used as an informative reference was the one  
you actually read. HTML5 is different from what it was when P&C was  
published. For most cases it doesn't matter (it is useful to have a link  
to the latest and greatest version with all the brilliant ideas the editor  
had after a saturday-night binge included), but for careful use of the  
documents it can actually make a material difference.

> Re editors: can't find anything in the process document that requires  
> them to be added.

1. It is a generally accepted convention that assists in recognising a  
reference, particularly from a printed version (yes, people still print  
specifications, often. There are sound reasons why this is likely to  
continue for some years).
2. Many of these publications are essentially volunteer work. The efforts  
of the editors (or the money of their employers that supports them taking  
on the work) are often motivated in part by the fact that their name is  
cited by convention. I don't see the use case for breaking this  
convention, and the small benefit that it provides to those who edit  
specifications.

> Of course, you are more than invited to add them  yourself to the
> spec if you really want.

Sure, I can do that.

> They were in the REC, so you can copy/paste them from there (or email me  
> the markup and I'll paste them in for you). However, I see no use case  
> for including them given that there is a hyperlink to their spec (which  
> already lists them).

Cheers

Chaals

-- 
Chaals - standards declaimer
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2012 13:53:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:54 GMT