- From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 20:08:22 +0100
- To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
- Cc: Lars Erik Bolstad <lbolstad@opera.com>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Hi Richard, On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Richard Barnes<rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote: >>> 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". > I disagree. "The right thing to do" has a time dimension attached to it. A while ago, we had consensus that "the right thing to do" was to have these attributes this way. As time passes, "the right thing to do" may change (and it has changed, in this case), but we need to draw the line somewhere. To me, drawing the line where the spec matches the implementations is sensible. > 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). > So you think this should not be a recommendation because the name of a boolean is wrong and you'd rather have a spec that doesn't match any existing implementation? How do you think developers will like that? Thanks, Andrei
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 19:08:58 UTC