- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 22:58:33 -0700
- To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Jun 7, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Noah Mendelsohn wrote: > > > On 6/7/2011 5:48 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> So you are saying then that if they disagree the author view should be >> the authoritative? Can we make sure to explicitly state so in the spec >> if that is what people agree should be the case? > > I wonder whether an alternative would be to state words to the effect: "These two specifications are generated from common base text and are intended to be entirely consistent. Both are normative and authoritative. With respect to any matters on which they (unexpectedly) disagree, there is a bug in at least one, and neither specification is authoritative with respect to the point(s) of disagreement. In such cases we expect to resolve the bug by publishing versions that are changed to be consistent. > > I can live with Jonas' proposal, but this seems to me supierior because: > > * It's important IMO (and the TAG's) that the author view be normative. > > * Given the many important technical details covered only in the full view, it's equally important that it be normative. > > (I'm speaking for myself here, not necessarily for the TAG, though I can of course check with them if you like). If we get a rough consensus around this type of language, then it would be great to get it recorded in a bugzilla bug. Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 06:00:20 UTC