W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2012

RE: ACTION-687: Please help me remember what this one is about

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:42:45 -0700
To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D194AC3633E@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
What I remembered thinking at the time -- don't know what others were exactly -- was that W3C should fix its process, and we shouldn't have to explain why something is broken. The W3C should not issue Rec with normative references to undated specifications. However, this is an administrative issue since the Rec on the subject is already in place.

As a W3C administrative matter; there doesn't seem to be any point in scheduling further TAG discussion.
W3C Staff is certainly aware of the concern. 

I'd suggest that someone just ask the AB if they would make sure to deal with this issue, and if there were any architectural or technical concerns still, to ask us.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net



-----Original Message-----
From: Noah Mendelsohn [mailto:nrm@arcanedomain.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 7:03 PM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Re: ACTION-687: Please help me remember what this one is about

OK, thank you, that's indeed helpful. I'm still a bit puzzled by the 
phrasing of the action: "look for opportunities to discuss..." Usually such 
actions say "Noah to schedule discussion of...", do you know whether 
something more subtle was intended? If not, I'll just schedule it for 
telcon consideration within the next few weeks (though a bit more 
debate/framing in e-mail might be helpful first?) Thank you.

Noah

On 4/24/2012 6:10 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> I think it was this:
>
> There's a normative reference from a W3C recommendation to an Internet Draft which has now expired and for which progress is uncertain (MIME sniffing).
>
> * Use of normative references to in-progress documents with no persistence guarantees seems in contradiction to the W3C QA recommendation. Is there a process issue that would have required checking references _before_ entering CR, and at least pointing out the dependency and requiring explicit agreement of reviewers that dangling references can be tolerated?
>
> * The cause of mime-sniffing being in the HTML working group originally seemed to be an unanticipated scope creep.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah Mendelsohn [mailto:nrm@arcanedomain.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 2:27 PM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: ACTION-687: Please help me remember what this one is about
>
> At the end of the 3 April 2012 discussion [1] of XML-ER, I was given:
>
> ACTION-687: on - Noah Mendelsohn - Look for opportunities to discuss
> putting forward something to the AB about the Process and the failed
> reference from REC drafts to expired RFCs as a side-effect of scope creep
> etc. - Due: 2012-04-24 - OPEN
>
> At the time this was assigned, the discussion had begun to focus on issues
> relating to sniffing, and Robin had just been given
>
> ACTION-686: on - Robin Berjon - try to find who is in charge of the current
> browser content sniffing clustermess, and see if there is a way of moving
> out of the quagmire - Due: 2012-05-01 - OPEN
>
> ACTION-686 makes sense to me; I confess that ACTION-687 doesn't. I'd be
> grateful if someone could remind me what it's trying to ask, and how (if at
> all) it relates to the XML-ER and sniffing discussions that we were having?
> Thank you.
>
> Noah
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/03-minutes#item04

>
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 14:43:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:53 GMT