- From: Dean Jackson <dino@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:34:55 +1100
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Jon Ferraiolo" <jferrai@us.ibm.com>, public-appformats@w3.org
On 11/01/2007, at 10:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> Regarding (2): You say: "Do you have a pointer?" Are you asking >> for a >> pointer to Dean's email (if so, it's earlier in the same thread), >> or are >> you asking for a pointer to the fact that it is inappropriate to >> include a normative reference to specs that change at the whim of >> the authors? If the latter, sorry, I don't have a pointer, but I >> expect somewhere in the >> standards world somehow has written up something to this effect. >> It's just common sense and accepted practice. Without this, the >> standards world would have chaos. > > I'm not convinced. I'm not sure convincing you of this makes much difference. The reason for the request is what Jon mentions below: that HTML5 doesn't have a formal process or patent policy (amongst other things). For those simple reasons, it is inappropriate and potentially dangerous to normatively reference the specification. If HTML5 was published by a recognised standards body with a clear royalty-free licensing arrangement then it would be acceptable to reference it. Dean > > >> I can't believe this notion would even be challenged. Instead >> of you asking me to provide a pointer to show that this is defined >> policy, I ask you to find an approved Recommendation at W3C that >> makes a normative reference to a spec that is maintained by an >> organization without a formal process or patent policy and what >> openly says its specs are subject to >> change. > > This is not a recommendation and won't be for the foreseeable future. >
Received on Thursday, 11 January 2007 00:35:22 UTC