- From: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:52:42 -0400
- To: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- CC: Lars Erik Bolstad <lbolstad@opera.com>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
>> The alternative, of course, is to explicitly agree that V1 is just going to >> be a documentation of what implementations are doing now, and reserve "what >> we really have consensus on" for V2. >> > > Sounds reasonable to me. Nobody claims we have reached perfection, so > V2 is very much needed. For those watching process, though, it's noteworthy that saying that there is consensus "Thid document says what implementations are doing now" is very different from saying "This document is what we think is the right thing to do." In IETF partlance, the former would be an "Informational" RFC, while the second would be "Standards Track". In other words, if a document only describes current practice, without WG consensus that it's good practice, then maybe it wouldn't make sense for that document to be a TR. I don't know the W3C process well enough to suggest what else it might be (other than a basis for improvement toward consensus). --Richard
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 18:53:18 UTC