- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 07:52:26 -0400
- To: ext Chaals McCathieNevile <w3b@chaals.com>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-native-web-apps@w3.org
Chaals, Marcos, Based on this discussion, I concluded this CfC has failed to show we have consensus. As such, after you two have agreed on a version of the spec that satisfies all of Chaals' concerns, my recommendation is we start a new CfC. -Thanks, AB On 7/26/12 9:52 AM, ext Chaals McCathieNevile wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:17:42 +0200, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, 25 July 2012 at 19:02, Chaals McCathieNevile wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:26:44 +0200, Arthur Barstow >>> <art.barstow@nokia.com (mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com)> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Marcos would like to publish a "Proposed Edited Recommendation" >>> [PER] > of the Widget Packaging and XML Configuration spec [REC] to >>> > incorporate the spec's errata and this is a Call for Consensus to do >>> > so. >>> >>> Currently I object. I would support the publication if: >>> >>> 1. It restored the pointer to an external errata document (Marcos is >>> clever, but there may still be errata) and >> >> Not sure what you mean here (and not just about being clever!:) )? >> There is a pointer to errata… >> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/errata.html >> It's right at the top of the document? What am I missing? > > The new version says that it incorporates the errata there, but > removes the statement that any further errata might be found at the > same place. I suggest reinstating the text that was taken out, since > there may be a need for errata on this document (personally I would > prefer to see a new version, allowing for example internationalisation > of more elements) > >>> 2. It restored the status of the document to cover patent policy and >>> where to send feedback and >> >> Ah, sorry… SoTD was from the editor's draft. I need to find a >> boilerplate for a PER. I'm going to copy the one from XML 5th Ed., >> but it's a bit of work so I'll do it RSN. > > OK, please do. > >>> 3. It fixes the normative references to include authors and point to >>> stable versions. >> >> I will only link to "stable" versions for normative references - >> informative references don't matter. > > I can live with that. However I note that it is useful to know what > version of something that you used as an informative reference was the > one you actually read. HTML5 is different from what it was when P&C > was published. For most cases it doesn't matter (it is useful to have > a link to the latest and greatest version with all the brilliant ideas > the editor had after a saturday-night binge included), but for careful > use of the documents it can actually make a material difference. > >> Re editors: can't find anything in the process document that requires >> them to be added. > > 1. It is a generally accepted convention that assists in recognising a > reference, particularly from a printed version (yes, people still > print specifications, often. There are sound reasons why this is > likely to continue for some years). > 2. Many of these publications are essentially volunteer work. The > efforts of the editors (or the money of their employers that supports > them taking on the work) are often motivated in part by the fact that > their name is cited by convention. I don't see the use case for > breaking this convention, and the small benefit that it provides to > those who edit specifications. > >> Of course, you are more than invited to add them yourself to the >> spec if you really want. > > Sure, I can do that. > >> They were in the REC, so you can copy/paste them from there (or email >> me the markup and I'll paste them in for you). However, I see no use >> case for including them given that there is a hyperlink to their spec >> (which already lists them). > > Cheers > > Chaals >
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2012 11:53:10 UTC