- From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:18:51 +0100
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>
- Cc: public-w3process@w3.org, "ab@w3.org" <ab@w3.org>, "Stephen Zilles" <szilles@adobe.com>
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:42:17 +0100, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: > [adding AB] > > Giuseppe, are you aware of the current AB activity? I'm curious that > this went to the public-w3process list (which I thought was the CG), and > not to the AB. I thought we had brought the Chairs into the AB > discussion. > Sorry, I wasn't aware of the AB activity and I thought the process CG was a good starting point for this discussion. /g > Jeff > > > On 3/19/2012 8:30 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >> Thanks for the question, I created ISSUE-5 >> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/5 ... >> >> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:21:45 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale >> <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote: >> >>> Personally I would prefer option 3 below (with option 1 when >>> applicable) >> >> [point to a "latest draft" reference]. >> >>> The reason is simple: specs tend to be around for a long time and the >>> references inside may not be updated after the initial work. If this >>> happens, we end up with some deployments stuck on old versions of a >>> given spec. >> >> I proposed in the HTML group that there should be a "latest version" >> URI that actually provides a escription of the different kinds of >> latest version available, from "the editor's sunday-morning mistakes >> included" to "the last formally stabilised version from years ago, >> known to be full of errors which are also known", and several things in >> between. >> >>> To mitigate the "moving target" concern I was proposing one of the >>> following options (non mutually exclusive): >> >> For reference guidance (following the principle that deep linking is >> legitimate, we shouldn't try to limit what people *can* do), I think we >> should provide something like the same document I describe above, with >> a recommendation that some baseline is considered for the sake of >> stability, but with a clear statement that since a later draft may have >> resolved real problems, the specification of any given feature in the >> latest draft should also be referenced. >> >> Of course there are cases where referencing just some latest draft is >> enough, and others that will really really only want some old and >> known-to-be-inferior version for real stability... >> >> cheers >> >> Chaals >> >>> A. mandate support for at least the version available in date X (but >>> not prevent people to move to a newer spec if available). X could be >>> the date of publication of the spec that contains the reference. >>> B. make a generic reference to the specs but "name" the features to >>> support. e.g. you could say "support the canvas element as specified >>> in [HTML5]" >>> >>> /g >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:17:42 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale >>> <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear W3C Process Community Group chairs and participants, >>>> >>>> we (=Web&TV IG chairs and staff contacts) got a liaison letter >>>> (attached) >>>> from the Open IPTV Forum asking about how they should handle >>>> references to >>>> W3C specifications that are not yet Recommendations. >>>> The liaison letter lists a set of options (with pro/cons) and ask the >>>> W3C >>>> for advice on how to move forward and how this issue has been >>>> addressed in >>>> other cases. >>>> >>>> The Web and TV IG held a telco [2] and had some initial discussion on >>>> possible options. >>>> There was no consensus on how to deal with the issue but the following >>>> options (non mutually exclusive) were mentioned: >>>> >>>> 1. For all specs referenced by HTML5, indirectly reference them >>>> through >>>> html5 specification (to avoid inconsistencies in references and >>>> reduce the >>>> number of open ended references) >>>> 2. Reference dated snapshots >>>> 3. Reference a generic undated TF version (e.g. as done by EPUB) >>>> >>>> (note: the letter also list other options) >>>> >>>> In general, the IG participants felt that was important for the W3C >>>> to be >>>> looking into this problem (that is common to many organizations) and >>>> formulate some policy/best practices. >>>> That is why I'm fwd this to you. >>>> >>>> Do you have any recommendations on this topic or do you think having a >>>> general policy on this will be in scope of your CG? >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> /g on behalf of the web&tv IG chairs >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] www.oipf.tv >>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2012/03/12-webtv-minutes.html >>>> >>> >>> >> >> -- Giuseppe Pascale TV & Connected Devices Opera Software
Received on Monday, 19 March 2012 14:19:26 UTC