On 03/03/2012 15:42, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> Irrespective of what is thought of the process, evidently something was done right to see the level of adoption and interoperability of HTML5 features (caniuse.com and similar sites present evidence that Ian is correct to this respect, specially for a specification that has not even reached CR).
Is there any documented feedback on how the living standard model has
been faring with less-popular technologies than HTML5?
One of the important aspects of the W3C process is that you start
getting attention when you yell "last call" and I wonder whether some
specs would get the level of scrutiny they deserve if it weren't for a
process that will "freeze" them eventually.
Olivier