Re: How can external organization reference draft W3C specifications

On 3/20/2012 12:05 AM, Steve Zilles wrote:
> All,
>    There are already 3 items on the List of Concerns [1], all under Contextual/Social Framework,  that, separately, cover various aspects of this request. These are:
>       * What are the various audiences for documents?
>       * Desire for stable reference.
>       * Official drafts are disconnected from some audience needs.
> It does not seem necessary to add anything to the list, but the request should be considered with these items.

I agree that the three bullets referenced could (in principle) include 
the issue of how organizations that we liaison with normatively 
reference our standards.  But I don't see verbiage in the detailed 
description that would make me confident that the Open IPTV forum 
concern got addressed.  Would anyone object to making the detailed 
verbiage more specific to this requirement?

>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012Mar/att-0007/AB_List_of_Concerns-20120306.htm
>
> Steve Zilles
> AB, Chair
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:chaals@opera.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 2:47 PM
> To: Jeff Jaffe
> Cc: public-w3process@w3.org; Giuseppe Pascale; ab@w3.org; Stephen Zilles
> Subject: 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 Tuesday, 20 March 2012 15:18:51 UTC