- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:57:08 -0500
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > Robin Berjon wrote: >> In the spirit of tiptoeing around the situation some more, I'd like to >> point out that Working Drafts are NEVER normative. Only >> Recommendations are. > > While true, a Working Draft is ipso facto something that is intended to > become a Recommendation if it gathers consensus. > >> I understand the arguments for sync and I understand the arguments for >> splits. But there's no reason we have to decide now. Since this WG is >> populated with people who have enough time on their hands to discuss >> issues of little relevance to the actual technologies, paying >> attention to an extra document shouldn't tax anyone's resources. So >> push the draft out and see how things go. No kitten will be harmed. > > As I said before, as long as there is a concrete plan for not ending up > with two Recommendations that are both normative and cover the same > ground, I'm fine with that. I can only see one such scenario: where one there is a significant period of time between the publishing of the two Recommendations, the one published first is a proper subset(*) of the other one, and the one published later is identified as superseding the first (e.g., if the first is identified as HTML5 and the latter as HTML6). Frankly, I see the likelihood of one or both documents not obtaining consensus is way more likely than the scenario mentioned above. > I just don't want a situation where right now people say that it doesn't > matter because it's just a Working Draft and when it gets to be in Last > Call they claim that it's too late to object to the normative status or > the scope. I agree with this. > -Boris - Sam Ruby (*) Where subset means that the earlier release may contain things that exist in HTML4 but are removed in the later version: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/#absent-elements http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/#absent-attributes
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 23:58:11 UTC