Re: How can external organization reference draft W3C specifications

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:42:17 +0100, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:

> [adding AB]
>
> Steve, this seems like a sufficiently important question that we want to  
> somehow fast-track it into the AB issues list and concerns - maybe even  
> get it into the current poll.

I don't control the poll, but I am likely to cherry-pick stuff from this  
list into the AB issue tracker anyway.

> 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.

Yes, we did. But public-w3process is the CG, which has a different  
audience (you don't have to be a chair or even a W3C member to  
participate).

cheers

Chaals

> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>


-- 
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 21:47:46 UTC