W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2007

Re: Web Forms 2 reviews - which version of WF2?

From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 21:06:39 +0100
Message-Id: <313F4017-DA28-4761-8E62-D4CE9A58060E@googlemail.com>
Cc: mikko.honkala@nokia.com, www-archive@w3.org
To: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>


On 2 Sep 2007, at 19:52, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:

> i only just discovered the second version during the IRC aftermatn of
> the HTML WG teleconference -- my question to the chairs, and editors
> is, which draft should be the basis of WF2 review and the basis of the
> joint task force's work?  if the later version, could it be pushed to
> TR space?  it took a direct inquiry for me to locate the CVS version,
> and if that is to be considered WF2's baseline, it desperately needs
> a more citeable URI, but more importantly, if it was pushed to CVS
> space, why was it not subsequently used to update the draft at its
> default location (in TR space) -- was this simply an oversight, or is
> there someone who could shed more light on this dichotomy?

/TR/ are technical reports, such as notes, working drafts, and  
recommendations (see the process document for further details). Not  
every editor's draft is a working draft. Simply, the latest WF2 draft  
hasn't been put forward as a WD, and therefore isn't a technical  
report. As far as the argument regarding citable URIs, the same could  
be applied for HTML 5 as a whole (which is currently only in W3C CVS/ 
WHATWG SVN).

Also:

> In order to keep public-html@w3.org focussed on the technical
> work of this group, I encourage everyone to take process
> issues up directly with the involved people and/or the chairs.

-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/0669.html


- Geoffrey Sneddon
Received on Sunday, 2 September 2007 20:07:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:14 UTC