Re: Spec organizations and prioritization

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:15:33 +0100, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>  
wrote:
> So in that hypothesis, we would basically ship specs that only document
> stuff that is already implemented, right?

They might contain other features, but those would not be "protected" as  
they are not marked as "stable".


> 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.

It's not so much removing I think as looking at what we actually need.


> 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.

I think we can leave it up to WGs to mark a feature as stable or not (if  
Members think we need such a thing), that is not something the process  
document needs to concern itself with.


> ...

Agreed on the rest.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 18:30:36 UTC