- From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:04:27 +0200
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, W3C Public TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
Le 19/10/2016 à 05:29, David Singer a écrit : > >> 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” yes but if the text to link to a reference section (Normative or informative). It is easier to maintain references, than looking into URL in the the text. > >> >> 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 up-to-date version of a given spec, rather than a stable but out-of-date 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 06:04:37 UTC