W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > May 2005

Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Formal vs prose language normativity

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 17:56:06 +0200
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <4289c01f.376113015@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Karl Dubost wrote:
>3. The technology is published as a REC.

(Note that this is likely more important for CRs than for RECs as for
RECs you would have other implementations that you need to consider
when resolving conflicts.)

>A few issues:
>     * The WG doesn't exist anymore
>     * The WG is not anymore chartered to make conceptual changes to  
>the specification
>     * The WG is slow to answer

It is clearly not acceptable for the W3C to have RECs that are neither
maintained nor rescinded; if this can happen it's a bug in the Process
document and should indeed be fixed. Clearly though "W3C makes every
effort to maintain its Recommendations" so I don't think there are such
issues except if W3C does not follow it's own Process document.

>The decision of the WG, I think, is in that sense being pragmatic.  
>Well, we recognize something bad might happen, and in this case you  
>should try to follow this rule. It doesn't mean that the WG will not  
>fix it, by the process document the WG has to fix it.

That's a SHOULD and "The Process Document explains how a WG can carry
out its wishes" but does not require Working Groups to wish for their
specifications beeing maintained...
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Monday, 16 May 2005 16:08:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:36 UTC