- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:47:31 -0400 (EDT)
- To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- cc: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, WAI Cross-group list <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, William Loughborough wrote: >At 09:12 AM 9/25/2002 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >>We hope and I believe that this process makes the document a robust and >>useful specification > >I guess there's no formal category called "specification"? The decision to >go for "recommendation" status was already deliberated in the PFWG and when >"voted on", carried. Yes, the current policy is to try and make it a Recomendation. That isn't cast in stone though. > >Clearly the current document may "specify" things such as "export >semantics" which aren't all that easy to elucidate (I know what it means >but can't convincingly explain how to either do it or check that it's been >done) but which need to be called for. If we are going to produce a Recommmendation we need to clarify how to do just that. But I don't believe it is impossible, and personally think it is worthwhile. >The formal/testable "recommendation" will be in the works forever and will >likely never be finaliz(s)ed - so be it. I disagree about the likelihood, and think the value of a W3C Recommendation is much higher than "some useful notes", both because it has higher status, and because to get that it has to go through a rigorous process of review that should ensure the document is implementable, testable, and useful. >What we CAN do is to provide guidance even though they are unlikely to >become "guidelines/checkpoints" and maybe if we just changed the >designations thereto it would be helpful to the X community? I think that any draft of XAG can be taken in that vein already. I think the tougher process of preparing a Recommendation is an important way to focus us on really getting it right. cheers Chaals
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 12:47:42 UTC