- 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
* 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 * The WG is slow to answer It is clearly not acceptable for the W3C to have RECs that are neither maintained nor rescinded; if this can happen it's a bug in the Process document and should indeed be fixed.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