Re: Normative/Informative status of the spec

On Nov 2, 2014, at 13:37, "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com<mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>> wrote:


On 3 Nov 2014 02:29, "Bob Lund" <B.Lund@cablelabs.com<mailto:B.Lund@cablelabs.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/2/14, 8:04 AM, "Cyril Concolato"
> <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr<mailto:cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr>> wrote:
>
> >Le 02/11/2014 12:05, Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit :
> >> Works for me. It think it will clarify the language.
> >Thanks Silvia. A few additional points for the rest of the group
> >(because you probably know them).
> >
> >The CG spec was briefly discussed at the end of the HTML WG's meeting at
> >TPAC. I basically indicated that the spec was there, reminded its
> >intent, that it needed review and I invited anyone to participate and in
> >particular browser vendors. I asked the question of which wording we
> >should use.
> >
> >It was pointed out that the HTML5 REC references our spec (!) in an
> >informative view, so we can do whatever we want.
>
> If the WG is OK with normative language in the sourcing spec then I think
> that is a good idea.

The HTML WG?

That is what Cyril said above.

Another thing to keep in mind is that DataCue was dropped from html5 for lack of implementation. We could add it to our spec to make it complete - or somebody has to posture it's addition into html5.1 when that spec gets modularised.

Finally: we can always try to move this spec into a WG for proper standardisation. I'd suggest trying to get some implementations first though.

I agree.

Regards,
Silvia