Re: CfC: publish Widgets P&C as a "Proposed Edited Recommendation"; deadline August 8

On 9 Aug 2012, at 12:52, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:

> 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.

Sure, go for it. Charles just needs to send me the updated refs and I need to update the SoTD. No biggy. We should have that by end of next week I would guess. Nothing is really a blocker there. 

> 
> -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 12:35:59 UTC