- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:46:31 +1100
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Cc: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:21:34 +0100, Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@cwi.nl> > wrote: > >> Hi Silvia, >> >> Thanks for this very valuable report from FOMS. >> >>> After it was understood what the spec is about, it was suggested we >>> split out those sections that are already stable and move those that >>> are still in the works into a draft for later release. Thus, we can >>> create a first, simple "versions" that can be implemented in full >>> right now. >> >> I understand the need for the developers to be informed of what is stable >> in a evolving spec and what is not, but I'm not a big fan of splitting >> documents. Our charter tells what the 1.0 version should cover. I would >> rather suggest we mark explicitly in our document the sections that we >> consider are stable giving a clear 'go' to web developers to start implement >> them and mark as unstable the sections we are actively working on. > > I think this is a good idea, it's approximately how HTML5 handles the issue > of sections with different maturity levels in the same spec. I'm happy with this, too. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2010 10:47:18 UTC