- From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:42:34 +0200
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: W3C Public TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
Simon, If we start having diffs from the CG draft and the WG draft, it may be a nightmare to synchronize those documents for publication. For TR we can't use normative reference linking to unstable documents. I suggest you have a normative ref to W3C DOM4 and an informative ref to [WHATWG-DOM] and this would probably do the trick. thierry Le 18/10/2016 à 12:36, Simon Pieters a écrit : > On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:55:50 +0200, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote: > >> Simon, David, >> >> Looking at WebVTT Draft Community Group Report, 15 July 2016 >> https://w3c.github.io/webvtt/ >> >> I see a normative reference to >> [WHATWG-DOM] >> Anne van Kesteren. DOM Standard. Living Standard. URL: >> https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/ >> >> This normative reference could be a problem. >> >> could'nt you use instead W3C DOM4 >> W3C Recommendation 19 November 2015 >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-dom-20151119/ >> >> >> Thierry > > The TR versions could do that if referencing WHATWG specs is a problem. > For the CG report I would like to reference the upstream, most > up-to-date version of a given spec, rather than a stable but out-of-date > spec that has issues that have been fixed in the upstream version. >
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 10:42:42 UTC