Re: DOM reference in WebVTT Draft CG Report

> On Oct 18, 2016, at 18:42 , Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 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.

It’s a hack, but OK.  We could have a line in the text even saying “the formal spec. is at X but the version at Y may be more up to date”

> 
> 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 up-to-date version of a given spec, rather than a stable but out-of-date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.
>> 

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2016 03:29:57 UTC