W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-editor@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: [xml-dev] NEL in XML 1.1

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:41:43 -0400
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Cc: xml-editor@w3.org
Message-ID: <r02000200-1028-3D41F31604A611D888600003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>

I'm totally with you on this one, Elliotte, but quoting the W3C's own
rules to it seems to accomplish nothing whatsoever.  So far as I can
tell they treat the Process document as W3C Recommendations are supposed
to be read: as guidelines, not capital S Standards.

I'm not sure what to make of the many last-minute changes to W3C XML
Schema, or of the XHTML WG's penchant for skipping CR, or of poisonous
namespace features added at the very end of the XPointer process.  It
happens.  The W3C doesn't appear to care institutionally.

elharo@metalab.unc.edu (Elliotte Rusty Harold) writes:
>How about before reading it and before it gets pushed to PR, I note 
>that a change of this nature is a violation of the W3C's advertised 
>process? Specifically, section 7.4.3, 
><http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr.html#rec-advance> 
>which states:
>
>After gathering implementation experience, the Working Group MAY 
>remove features from the technical report that were identified as 
>being "at risk" and request that the Director Call for Review of a 
>Proposed Recommendation. If the Working Group makes other substantive 
>changes to the technical report, the Director MUST return it to the 
>Working Group for further work.
>
>If the Working group feels it's important to make this substantive 
>change in the BNF grammar of XML 1.1 at this point in time, then it 
>must go back to working draft, not forward to PR.
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2003 11:42:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:46 UTC