W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > October 2011

[Bug 14363] Section appears to be saying that conformance checkers must obtain the list of valid meta names by screen-scraping a public wiki? *Seriously*? That's a joke, right?

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:43:50 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RAkgI-0008F7-3U@jessica.w3.org>

John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |jfoliot@stanford.edu

--- Comment #1 from John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> 2011-10-03 15:43:49 UTC ---
W3C Reference URL:

Outside of the crude method of data retrieval, I also have concerns over the
following section:

      The name has received wide peer review and approval. 

Please define "wide peer review". At issue is the accuracy and validity of the
assertion of Ratified.

If I show it to a few of my friends via an IRC chat at 2:00 AM, and they all
agree that it looks good, does that constitute a wide peer review? Can I then
claim my newly minted metadata name Ratified? 

Proposal to resolve this bug:
Remove section " Other metadata names" from the W3C specification until
such time as a more robust method of adding metadata names to the collection is
established. 6 friends with the key to a public wiki hardly seems accountable
and would likely be ignored by conformance checkers due to the high overhead
imposed upon them to remain up-to-date.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 3 October 2011 15:43:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:02:05 UTC