- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:30:05 +0100
- To: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
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