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, 09 Aug 2012 14:10:42 +0200
To: "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com>, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-native-web-apps@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.wirv34l222x22q@chaals>
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:52:26 +0200, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>  
wrote:

> Chaals, Marcos,
>
> Based on this discussion, I concluded this CfC has failed to show we  
> have consensus. As such, after you two have agreed on a version of the  
> spec that satisfies all of Chaals' concerns, my recommendation is we  
> start a new CfC.

Works for me. Marcos, should I just send you a snippet for references?

cheers

> -Thanks, AB
>
> On 7/26/12 9:52 AM, ext Chaals McCathieNevile wrote:
>> 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, 9 August 2012 12:11:15 GMT

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