W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2007

Web Forms 2 reviews - which version of WF2?

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 14:52:56 -0400
To: <mikko.honkala@nokia.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <20070902184956.M2693@hicom.net>

aloha, mikko!

first, thank you for such careful review of Web Forms 2.0 -- may i 
inquire which version of WF2 you are reviewing?  the 21 august 2006 
submission to the W3C [1], which is located in TR space, or the CVS 
version datestamped 12 october 2006 [2]?

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/web-forms-2
[2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/web-forms-2/Overview.html

i only just discovered the second version during the IRC aftermatn of 
the HTML WG teleconference -- my question to the chairs, and editors 
is, which draft should be the basis of WF2 review and the basis of the 
joint task force's work?  if the later version, could it be pushed to 
TR space?  it took a direct inquiry for me to locate the CVS version, 
and if that is to be considered WF2's baseline, it desperately needs 
a more citeable URI, but more importantly, if it was pushed to CVS 
space, why was it not subsequently used to update the draft at its 
default location (in TR space) -- was this simply an oversight, or is 
there someone who could shed more light on this dichotomy?

my review of WF2 has been based on the version submitted to and accepted
by the W3C -- if we are to work off a different draft, that draft should
at least be pushed to HTML WG space, as the editor's draft of HTML5 is 
pushed to: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/, if not to TR space...

ACCOUNTABILITY, n. The mother of caution.
                 -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
         Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net
UBATS-United Advocates for Talking Signs: http://ubats.org
Received on Sunday, 2 September 2007 18:53:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:21 UTC