Re: Put Editor's draft on TR page, not heartbeat formal publications -> RE: Evaluating policies; pubrules

On 3/22/12 10:19 AM, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com> wrote:

>There has been some significant resistance to versioning instead
>proposing  
>the "living standard model".

These two concerns don't seem contradictory. Quite the opposite, actually.
I argue rapid iterative development needs versioning to be effective. And
afaik, the development of the HTML5 spec happens on SVN.

SemVer adds a lightweight layer on top of versioning which gives
indication of the nature of the recent changes and their degree of
stability.

>> Recommendation status would be akin to SemVer's 1.0.
>
>So the first W3C HTML5 draft would be, in such a model, HTML 5.0.0?

Either that or HTML5 1.0.0 depending on the case.

>> Editor's draft would follow a similar path to the pre-launch SemVer
>> notation: breaking changes would get minor update (e.g. from 0.2.0 to
>> 0.3.0), non-breaking changes would get patch updates. Minor and patch
>> updates could be pushed to /tr immediately. The editor could go crazy on
>> the bleeding-edge spec without affecting anyone yet the spec in /tr
>>would
>> be continuously updated.
>
>This last bit is something that I think is crystallising as the common
>statement of a goal.

Absolutely. Is there agreement around this or this wishful thinking on my
part? And I understand there are IP implications.

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 09:46:51 UTC