- From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 17:40:57 -0700
- To: "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: "'Steve Faulkner'" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, <public-html-admin@w3.org>
David Singer wrote: > > I don't disagree that the current state is confusing. But that's > exactly what a heartbeat should be disambiguating! So we have agreement here. The next question is, how? If the current state-of-the-state is the currently date-less Github document, are we prepared to freeze that as a snapshot of the heart? I am not opposed to that, as long as I know where I can easily find the snapshot, so that the next time there is a push to Git, and the content of the document changes, I can reference both. If we have a method to do that, I'm in. > > Do we > > even need a "heartbeat" document anymore? > > The AB has this on their plate. In general my sense is "no, if you > work in public and it's evident what the latest state is" > > People still need to disambiguate > * editor's draft (their best effort) > * consensus working draft of the working group > * specific time-points in the Rec progression (CR, PR, Rec etc.) > > but that should be much easier than it is now. Agreed, across the board. The devil, as they say, is in the details. Since those details are being worked out now, but have not yet been decide upon, I return to the question, what is the hurry to publish a heartbeat document NOW? If Steve could include the Last Updated information on the Github document, I think it would serve as the notice of both its currency, and if the date is less than 90 days old, that it is still under active development. Those who wish to offer feedback and comments can do so to a dated document, knowing full well that the last changes were made on such-n-such date. When something is living, the heart is always beating. JF
Received on Saturday, 11 October 2014 00:42:16 UTC