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

Re: Fw: CfC: Close ISSUE-177: ietf-id-wip by Amicable Resolution (ACTION-350)

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:46:29 -0500
Message-ID: <4F22D4E5.2050401@arcanedomain.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
CC: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
Speaking for myself (I.e. not as TAG chair or on behalf of the rest of the
TAG): I agree with Larry on pretty much all of what's quoted below.
Specifically, I strongly feel that [1] is not only status quo from a
process point of view, it's generally sound advice. If someone believes
changes are needed, then I agree with Larry that:

> It would seem to be the responsibility of working groups, chairs,
> editors, and staff contact to make best effort to follow the
> quaframe-spec recommendations; if for some reason doing so is
> impractical, working groups should document why they cannot be or
> should not be followed.

Larry also writes:

> my current take is that any additional TAG work on ACTION-350 should be
> couched in terms of updates or extensions of that recommendation, if
> any.  (I think we have some things to add to the qaframe spec still, but
> mainly to extend the scope to cover non-normative references and to talk
> about the nature of the review process.)

I don't have an opinion (either as an individual or as chair) as to whether 
this is a good time for the TAG to do work in this area. What I would say 
is that not only the TAG, but anyone else suggesting changes to these 
conventions, should propose them as updates or extensions to [1].

Noah

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/

On 1/26/2012 7:13 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> Under TAG ACTION-350 I originally took on
> https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/350
>
> to carry forward a "best practice" around references to updating
> specifications (draft
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html)
>
> In the course of discussion of this as a potential TAG finding, Karl
> Dubost  noted an existing w3c recommendation
> http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice covering the
> topic.
>
> This Recommendation (qaframe-spec) represents a community consensus for
>  references from one document to another; my current take is that any
> additional TAG work on ACTION-350 should be couched in terms of updates
>  or extensions of that recommendation, if any.  (I think we have some
> things to add to the qaframe spec still, but mainly to extend the scope
>  to cover non-normative references and to talk about the nature of the
> review process.)
>
> However,  even without any additional TAG work,  it would seem to be the
> responsibility of working groups, chairs, editors, and staff contact to
> make best effort to follow the quaframe-spec recommendations; if for
> some reason doing so is impractical, working groups should document why
>  they cannot be or should not be followed.
>
> In this particular case "ietf-id-wip", the applicable guideline from
> quspec-frame says:
>
> # Each normative reference to another specification (from W3C or not)
> should adhere to as many of the following principles as apply: # * Make
>  reference to a precise and unique version of the other specification.
>
> An undated URL reference does not follow this principle. Is there a
> reason why the reference should be undated and not a unique version?
> Personally, in the years that I have edited specifications, I've not
> found it too difficult to include a specific dated identified reference,
> and just update it as necessary.
>
> In addition, it mentions: # * When referencing a generic technology and
>  all its future versions, be sure that the technology is orthogonal to
> yours and that future versions will not create incompatibilities for
> conformance or implementation. # * When referencing a generic technology
> and all its future versions, make it clear that the conformance
> requirements to a fixed version of your specification will potentially
> change over time to reflect changes made in the referenced technology as
> it changes in future versions.
>
> I Now, Julian's proposed solution (merely to annotate the references as
>  'work in progress') may not in itself be adequate to match the
> requirements of qaframe-spec, although a label "(work in progress)" does
> help to notify the reviewer that conformance requirements might change.
>
> To at least some degree, W3C's credibility as a SDO (recognized by ISO,
>  IETF, and other standards development organizations) depends on the
> perception that W3C is careful about dependency of one specification on
>  others and the management of the review&  standards process.
>
> For example, IETF attempts to reduce reliance of a stable specification
>  on an unstable one by controlling "downward references" (i.e.,
> references to specifications with more volatility.) There is an
> exception in the IETF rules for references to specifications by "other
> SDOs" (which includes W3C) based on the assumption that W3C
> specifications would follow its own rules.
>
> Insofar as W3C allows individuals to disregard these QA recommendations,
> and call it a matter of "personal taste", it reduces the credibility of
> W3C in the eyes of others for whom such distinctions are important.
>
> In any case, given the amount of effort that has gone into the
> discussion of the general issues around normative references, it seems
> inappropriate to say that this is merely editorial, a matter of taste,
> or a waste of time.
>
> Larry
Received on Friday, 27 January 2012 16:46:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:44 GMT