W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > June 2009

Re: updated editor's draft of the Geolocation API specification

From: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:52:42 -0400
Message-ID: <4A2EAF7A.6050806@bbn.com>
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).

Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 18:53:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:50:56 UTC