- From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:57:42 -0700
- To: nrm@arcanedomain.com
- Cc: jonas@sicking.cc, fielding@gbiv.com, jgraham@opera.com, Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com, public-html@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
1+ on Noah's proposal --- independent of whcih spec one prefers, it at least gurantees eventual sanity. Noah Mendelsohn writes: > > > 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). > > Noah --
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 23:58:46 UTC