RE: How can external organization reference draft W3C specifications

Latest TR WG draft (without a version) seems best.  But, that would mean W3C needs a policy of frequently updating Working Group drafts for drafts that are being widely implemented.  Like HTML5 main draft in TR every 6 weeks, not 10 months.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:chaals@opera.com]
>Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 5:30 AM
>To: public-w3process@w3.org; Giuseppe Pascale
>Subject: Re: How can external organization reference draft W3C specifications
>
>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

>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
>     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
>http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Received on Monday, 19 March 2012 19:04:40 UTC