- From: Tantek Çelik via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2016 01:34:41 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
@iherman I don't understand what you mean by "#1 referring to future versions of the spec". The problem is in *this* version of the spec, and thus the note makes sense inline to refer to this version. Re: would be possible only with the Director's approval. My understanding is that per new W3C process (2014?) a group may iterate and produce a new CR without having to go back to the Director, that is, what used to require bouncing between LCWD and CR, now is just a matter of iterating in CR. Regardless, worse than "extra time required" or "possible only with the Director's approval", if there are features in a spec which are known to either not have test cases, or not have test cases that test the functionality for which the features were added (in this case, the i18n requirements), or not have implementations that pass those test cases in a way that demonstrates interoperable user functionality from the i18n requirements, then those features MUST NOT advance to PR, whether or not explicitly noted in CR exit requirements. My suggestion above was more to be explicit about it in the spec rather than having it be implied. If untested or unimplemented or uninteroperable features (these properties) were explicitly at-risk, the group may drop them to help transition to PR. Otherwise untested/unimplemented/uninteroperable features (especially a novel approach as documented) must block a CR from transitioning to PR. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tantek Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/335#issuecomment-238057937 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 7 August 2016 01:36:46 UTC