W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Publication of the final WG Note of 'Usage Patterns For Client-Side URI parameters'

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:49:40 +0100
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <mduak7d59o7dbpbllha0rrb0hlbfsth99g@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Yves Lafon wrote:
>Following the publication of the TAG Finding on "Identifying Application 
>State" [1][2], and to signal the end of REC-track work on that document 
>after it fulfilled its goal of attracting wider review, the TAG published 
>a final Working Group Note of 'Usage Patterns For Client-Side URI 
>parameters' [3].
>[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/IdentifyingApplicationState
>[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tag-announce/2011Dec/0000.html
>[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-hash-in-uri-20120209/

"The W3C technical report development process is the set of steps
and requirements followed by W3C Working Groups to standardize Web
technology." That does not seem to say that it is a set of steps
and requirements to attract wider review. Technical report... that
seems to indicate Technical Reports will contain Technical content.
This Technical Report does not.

The Note says "If you wish to make comments regarding this document,
please send them to www-tag@w3.org (subscribe, archives). All feedback
is welcome." but it also says "This document will NOT be updated." So,
why would I send comments? If I think what the document says is bad,
wrong, misguided, misleading, and whatever argument I may make won't
lead to changes to the document, then why bother?

Do you really think this makes sense, using a process designed to
standardize Web technology to merely attract wider review, to use a
Technical Report series to publish non-technical information, to ask
for comments on a document while being unwillig to change the document
based on those comments?

Ignore the implied criticism, I would simply like to understand how
and why you think this is a reasonable course of action. Most of the
content of the document is boilerplate, that in itself suggest to me
that there is something wrong with it. I would like to understand why
you (or whoever is responsible) doesn't think and feel like I do.
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 23:50:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:44:01 UTC