Re: "Living Standards"

On Friday, February 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2012-02-03 10:45, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> >  
> >  
> > On Monday, January 2, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> >  
> > > Hallo,
> > >  
> > > On Monday, 2 January 2012 at 17:18, Robin Berjon wrote:
> > > > Having said that, it doesn't really matter if that anchor is "Edition 17" or "Commit deadbeef". The important thing is to put people in control of whether they want the bleeding edge or a sta(b)le version.
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > Sure, people should be afforded privacy to do such unspeakable (or murderous) things behind closed doors. The problem I raise is when such things try to get forced on the open Web, as once happened with Widgets.
> >  
> > Oh @$%#@! It happened again:(
> >  
> > https://developer.tizen.org/doc.html
> >  
> > (click on "Tizen Web API Reference" and then on "W3C Widget Specifications" or "WAC 2.0")
> >  
> > The *outdated* versions specs were copy and pasted from the W3C Website and from the WAC site to the Tizen website.
> > ...
>  
>  
>  
> Whether it's outdated or not is one of the things we argue about.
>  
> But anyway: if they did have copied the Editor's version, how exactly  
> would that be better unless they have a mechanism to keep things up-to-date?

True. I guess I need to put more info somewhere that explains why this is a bad thing… I guess I keep assuming that people would know better… it kinda sucks, because I want people to use the text and examples of the specs (i.e., I want Public Domain), but I don't want them to copy the whole spec, freeze it, and then code to it and ignore the updates to it…. I guess I want specs to be more like self-updating software.

Received on Friday, 3 February 2012 14:45:29 UTC