- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:16:33 -0400
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org, ayg@aryeh.name, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 14:21 +0200, Robin Berjon wrote: > I may have missed it but I don't think that anyone is suggesting that > all new drafts should be forced to use HTML5, simply that it be > allowed in pubrules. Yes, I agree. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I don't want to see Recommendations on /TR using markup features that are defined only by working drafts, just as we don't normally allow a normative reference from a Recommendation to a Working Draft. Obviously if the HTML 5 spec uses HTML 5, by the time HTML 5 is a Recommendation, the markup used by the HTML 5 spec will also be a Recommendation :-) and there isn't a problem. Similarly for any spec with a normative dependency on HTML 5. It's not about who can shout loudest to say their spec is stable - pretty much everyone thinks their spec is stable at last call, because that's what last call means; very often there are normative changes afterwards because of people outside the WG. But in any case, for me, the policy question of changing pubrules is not about HTML 5 but about the general principle of whether the markup language of a specification is in itself in effect a dependency. If it is not, then we should be allowed to edit pages on /TR, and in that case if HTML 5 were to change, any specs written in HTML 5 could be updated. I'd be equally happy with either approach, by the way - early adopters of draft standards need to be willing for the ground to change under their feet: it's the nature of the game. Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2011 18:17:16 UTC