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

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

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 12:14:52 -0400
To: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
Cc: mikko.honkala@nokia.com, www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <20070903155758.M92883@hicom.net>

aloha, geoffrey!

i realize that not everything in TR space is a technical 
recommendation, and i know the difference between an editor's 
draft and a public working draft, having worked on several TRs 
myself; my concern was/is that the "occasional updates" aren't 
being pushed to w3c space...

i did address the chairs of both the Forms and HTML working groups,
as well as the staff contacts for each on the public-forms-tf:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms-tf/2007Sep/0000.html

what concerned me about WF2 versioning, and the reason i raised 
the issue on public-html, is due to the fact that there have recently 
been several reviews of WF2 posted to public-html, and i want to 
ensure that EVERYONE is working off the same document...

it wasn't easy to find the 12 october 2006 draft -- only in response
to an open inquiry in W3C IRC space (#html-wg), when the editor of 
the draft was on IRC, was i able to find the latest draft, and not 
through the agency of the editor, but through the assistance of a 
fellow HTML WG member...  it is certainly NOT in an obvious place, 
nor the is the dev.w3.org URI the most stable...

all i want/wanted to accomplish is to pin down precisely which 
document version we should use, and what changes have been made
to the 21 august 2006 draft, and why it isn't in html/wg space
with the editor's draft of HTML5

it is precisely the versioning nightmare you outlined that bothers
me about the reviews -- how are we to review a moving target, without
knowing in which direction to aim?

i also am at a loss as to why you pointed me to DanC's "take a deep
breath and relax" post -- i only took the issue to the list when 
individuals began posting detailed reviews of WF2 to public-html --
otherwise my posting would have been limited to the post cited 
above in the public-forms-tf archive...

gregory.
-------------------------------------------------------
BRAIN, n.  An apparatus with which we think we think.
              -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
-------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net
  Oedipus' Online Complex: http://my.opera.com/oedipus/
-------------------------------------------------------

---------- Original Message -----------
From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
Cc: mikko.honkala@nokia.com, www-archive@w3.org
Sent: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 21:06:39 +0100
Subject: Re: Web Forms 2 reviews - which version of WF2?

> 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
------- End of Original Message -------
Received on Monday, 3 September 2007 16:15:15 UTC

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