Having technical discussions around a technology or even potential API isn't a problem; you're correct, that's what Community Groups are for. If the goal truly is to just generate a Rec-track specification, however, that's not what they're for; they can effectively produce a Note (approximately), that a Working Group (with its due process) could then rip apart completely (i.e., the "input to the standards process" should not be considered a fait accompli when it is handed to a Working Group). That's all I was trying to express. On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com> wrote: > Well, it's the first time I'm doing this, so please bare with me. The > idea is basically to have technical discussions around a potential > API. I don't see a problem with doing that around something looking > like a spec (non standard-track of course), though. In fact, the > Community and Business Group FAQ states, under "What is a W3C > Community Group?": > > "A W3C Community Group is an open forum, without fees, where Web > developers and other stakeholders develop specifications, hold > discussions, develop test suites, and connect with W3C's international > community of Web experts. Community Groups may produce Specifications; > these are not standards-track documents but may become input to the > standards process. [...]" > > /Marcus > > 2013/11/14 Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>: > > If the goal of this group is to produced a specification, it really > > shouldn't be done inside a Community Group. Community Groups are only > > intended to produce Community Group Reports (e.g., a technology > innovation > > from a small set of developers). As per the W3C's guidelines, Community > > Groups Reports are not standards-track documents. > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Jens Nockert <jens@nockert.se> wrote: > >> > >> I signed up. > >> > > > >
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2013 18:29:56 UTC