Re: "Living Standards"

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:04:04 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile  
<> wrote:

> So here beginneth the thread, and I'll explain in a reply some things I  
> think are better about the living standards model ...

First, I'd draw out some thoughts from the thread:

1. There is a tension between giving people what they think of as a useful  
reference (because it won't change under them) and giving people our best  
understanding of the truth (at least as far as browsers implement it).  
 From this and Marcos' discussion on bibliographies, I conclude that there  
are people who have a need for each type of reference (some people want  
both at once).

2. It would be good if W3C process allowed for simple editing of  
"finished" specs. As far as I know it is really easy for a WG to approve  
errata, which are meant to be linked from a spec anyway, although there is  
no mechanism for a spec to say "there are *actual* erratat there you  
should look at" as opposed to "there might be something...". I've never  
tried to push through a Proposed Edited Recommendation (although I have  
added work for people who did try to do so by asking for it to reflect  
reality better, which they kindly did).

3. People don't read specs and use them properly. I am not sure what makes  
them do so, but I suspect it isn't really a process issue - people have  
*always* skimmed and missed important stuff, and as far as I can tell they  
always will.

There's some more in there, but I'd like to see if we agree that these  
things are real issues.



Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk       Try Opera:

Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 17:06:38 UTC