Re: After 5

Chaals

Thanks for the clear explanation, makes sense. 

(I honestly was trying to understand the thread and it wasn’t exactly clear to me, so I knew making a summary would help make the correct summary explicit :)

thanks!

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
@fjhirsch



On Sep 22, 2014, at 10:17 AM, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:

> 
> 
> 22.09.2014, 13:32, "Robin Berjon" <robin@w3.org>:
>> On 18/09/2014 19:50 , Frederick Hirsch wrote:
>>> proposal is to go from using versioned documents to saying that
>>> everything that is found at a well-defined location is the current
>>> living standard.
>>> 
>>> Thus an update to the standard consists of adding or updating
>>> material to be found at the location (modular)
>>> 
>>> did I get this right?
>> 
>> I think you're trying to summarise this too much!
> 
> And more specifically, no, I think you got it wrong. As I understand it, the proposal is:
> 
> + continue publishing stabilised documents, while making the absolute-breathlessly-latest-most-modern-ever (or "living") version easily available and findable
> + Recognise that there are a number of documents that make up what we think of as "HTML".
> + Increase that number by splitting the current 1000+ page spec called "HTML5" into a few more manageable pieces.
> + Having a document that functions a bit like a table of contents, but which points to a number of different specifications, rather than just different chapters or sub-sections of the one monstrous document
> 
> In other words, imagine that we made some chapters of HTML into separate specifications, but the "contents page" included them as first-class parts of the content of the "HTML Spec", rather than just normative reference documents.
> 
> Given that we already have to deal with the integration of the stuff on pages 20-45 with the stuff on pages 1045-1060 (and all the stuff in between), and that the process doesn't work perfectly, I think the biggest real impact is that chapters will turn into specifications with memorable names and a manageable size. 
> 
> It is already the case that they are developed at different speeds and there are differing amounts of stability and implementation, on a far more granular level, so that's not a big deal in practice as far as I can tell.
> 
> And Amen!  Hear hear! +lots!!1! to Robin's frustration with the idea that only one or the other matter in the "real world". The real world is quite a complex and diverse place, and needs lots of things.
> 
> cheers
> 
> Chaals
>> Some people need up to date living standards, others need stable
>> releases. I am tired of reading discussions in which people on either
>> side are angry at people on the other side simply because they live in a
>> different world that has different use cases.
>> 
>> As a result, I think that both ought to be available (under a specific
>> set up that makes it work). This provides a dedicated location for
>> living stuff, and another for snapshots. Hopefully we can minimise the
>> friction between the two by making it easier to ship actual standards
>> much more often, which is good for both IPR reasons and in terms of
>> avoiding having stale documents around. Call it "evergreen standards" if
>> you will.
>> 
>> Note that drafts.wpo is not a standards organisation, it is just a place
>> where people can work on standards together. Standardisation happens in
>> the same old way.
>> 
>> --
>> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
> 
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
>

Received on Monday, 22 September 2014 17:27:27 UTC