- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:15:33 +0100
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Le mercredi 21 mars 2012 à 18:58 +0100, Anne van Kesteren a écrit : > > What about implementation experience on the said snapshot? My (possibly > > wrong) understanding is that companies wouldn't want to license stuff > > that isn't actually used. > > That does not seem to have been a problem with many Recommendations to > date where maybe one or two companies have an implementation of sorts, but > most don't. I didn't mean that companies would only license stuff they implement themselves, but that they only want to license stuff that is actually being used and deployed on the Web. > If that is actually a problem we could use stability markers > to reduce scope So in that hypothesis, we would basically ship specs that only document stuff that is already implemented, right? If so, your proposal sounds of similar orientation to mine, but with a more radical removal of other steps in the rec track, esp. the time-consuming last call reviews processing and interoperability testing. To put in other words, you propose to remove interop testing (at least the thorough one we tend to aim at nowadays) from the way of getting RF commitments — that sounds like a thought worth pursuing. I think we would still want some assessment that a given "feature" is implemented — I don't know how the WHATWG docs gather that data at the moment. Removing the reviews part sounds a lot more contentious, but I guess your approach is that they would still be dealt with via the regular "living standards" process (and their results would thus appear in the next iteration of that process). That sounds interesting overall; I don't know how much chances it would have to fly given the strong ties between the Patent Policy and the Process Document, but it might be worth exploring it (speaking on my own name, obviously). > (which W3C should really copy from WHATWG) Yes, I think that a number of the document annotations in the WHATWG docs are really useful tools that we should look at. Dom
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 18:15:53 UTC