- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:45:11 +0800
- To: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Cc: Silvia Pfieffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, W3C Public TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
ah, can you, PLH, the HTML chairs and other parties help reach an agreement on the way ahead for both HTML and VTT, and then we’ll do what’s agreed? > On Oct 19, 2016, at 14:26 , Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote: > > > > Le 19/10/2016 à 08:14, Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit : >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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. >> >> >> FWIW: the HTML reference is to the WHATWG version also, so we should >> be consistent. > > Right. we should be consistent. > The HTML reference to WHATWG version is the same issue. > It should be also update. > > as I said earlier, if we start having diffs from the CG draft and the WG draft, it may be a nightmare to synchronize those documents by updating refs and other stuff for each TR publication. > > Thierry. > > > > >> >> Cheers, >> Silvia. David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2016 06:46:07 UTC