W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2012

[admin] Consistent Boilerplate and Status sections for EDs [Was: Re: CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2]

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:00:35 -0500
Message-ID: <50B3AE43.5070609@nokia.com>
To: ext Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Adam,

Yes I agree it would be good if the EDs for XHR and DOM (and URL and 
Fullscreen) used relatively consistent boilerplate (by boilerplate/BP, I 
mean the top of the documentto the first section that contains text such 
as the Abstract, SotD, ToC, Intro, etc.).

Some people may not realize the so-called Technical Reports "PubRules" 
do _not_ apply to EDs. This provides Editors - who do a substantial part 
of the group's work - some flexibility  but it also means an ED's BP 
and/or SotD can be (significantly) different than the BP and SotD of 
the  related  TR and that can result in some confusion.

Ideally, the BP and SotD section of WebApps' EDs would be "effectively" 
the same as the versions of the spec created as TRs. And indeed, of the 
group's ~40 specs, this is true for most (~35) of the specs.

A few Editors, for what I will characterize as "non technical reasons", 
have decided to make relatively significant changes to their BP and in a 
few cases the ED  does not even have a SotD section.

Although my preference is for the BP and SotD parts of EDs and TRs 
versions be mostly the same, I am not at all interested in creating 
publication rules for EDs nor am I willing to track the conformance of 
such rules.

In the future, for these few specs where the ED's BP and/or SotD is 
different than what is required for TR, it would make sense to ask the 
Editors to create a TR version _before_ the CfC starts^1. And yes, my 
expectation is TRs will give appropriate attribution.

-AB

^1 I will ask the XHR and DOM Editors to create a TR version of their 
specs now so they can be used during their CfCs.



On 11/25/12 11:36 AM, ext Adam Barth wrote:
> It seems like we should be consistent in our handling of the DOM and
> XHR documents.  For example, the copy of DOM at
> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html> lacks a
> Status of this Document section, but presumably the version published
> by this working group will have one.  If we decide that the SotD
> section of XHR ought to acknowledge the WHATWG, we likely should do
> the same for this document.
>
> The copy of DOM at
> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html> seems to
> give appropriate credit by linking to the Living Standard and listing
> sensible Editors.  Will the version of the document published by this
> working group also give credit appropriately?
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
>> This is Call for Consensus to publish a  Working Draft of the DOM spec using
>> #ED as the basis.
>>
>> Please note Lachlan will continue to edit the ED during this CfC period.
>>
>> Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD;
>> and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD.
>>
>> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to
>> this e-mail by December 2 at the latest.
>>
>> Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will
>> be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
>>
>> -Thanks, AB
>>
>> #ED <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Received on Monday, 26 November 2012 18:00:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:56 GMT