W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: ISSUE-81: representation-vs-resource - Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:12:18 -0800
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <310368D6-47FF-4105-85B2-EF57107A7F6E@apple.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>

On Jan 18, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:

>> If there's really no way to address this without 
>> many months of work, for what is ultimately an 
>> editorial issue, then I'd have to question whether
>> it needs to be a showstopper at all.
> Roy didn't claim it would take many months of work.
> I don't think anyone asserted that addressing this
> issue would take many months of work. Roy's claim
> is that while Hixie continues to make major
> editorial changes throughout the document, that work
> put in now would be likely wasted, since Hixie doesn't
> agree with the editorial changes and could well
> rewrite the sections again.
> Is it your assertion that issues that are "ultimately
> editorial" do not actually need to be addressed?
> The alternative which is clearly within the chair's
> discretion is:
> " With prior permission from the chairs, a high-level 
> prose description of the changes to be made."
> Given Roy's rationale, I think allowing a change
> proposal with a high-level prose descriptions of
> the changes to be made would be useful.

The Chairs have already offered Roy two alternatives that we think would be good enough:

1) Write the changes against a specific CVS version number of the spec. If the Change Proposal succeeds, then we will expect the changes to be applied properly to any changes as well.

2) Write clear definitions of all affected terms, possibly in the form of suggested edits to the terminology section, and demonstrate correct usage of the terms by suggesting specific edits to one or two representative sections.

Both of these would not be invalidated by ongoing spec changes, and seem like reasonable approaches. We are willing to consider other constructive alternatives as well, as long as they come with a reasonable timeline attached.

While we have not discussed the possibility of just a high-level prose description without showing any detail, my own feeling is that it would leave too much room for misinterpretation. 

Received on Monday, 18 January 2010 20:12:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:57 UTC