- From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:38:58 +0100
- To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>
- Cc: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:04:24 +0100, Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com> wrote: >> Isn't this already the case for WGs that include a link to the Editor's >> Draft in the >> spec header and don't enforce heartbeat pubs just for the sake of it? > > No, it's different because the latest Editor's draft appears on the TR > page. It's like instantly publishing a WG Draft on the TR page each > time there's a new Editor's draft. (It could be called WG Draft instead > of Editor's Draft since it replaces the longer more formal publication > of intermediate drafts). > I'm not too familiar with the current process so could you clarify to me if your proposal is: A. do not have specs in /TR/ until CR stage and have an editor drafts that includes everything (also experimental text that was never discussed and will probably be changed) B. have specs in /TR/ updated very frequently but that reflects some discussion/agreement in the WG, while there is still somewhere else a "real" editor draft (on dvcs?) with text proposals up for discussion in the WG If the proposal is A, than I think that will introduce even more confusion for people looking at the specifications that are not part of the WG (or not part of W3C), so would recommend not to do it. If the proposal is B, than I agree it will make a lot of sense and will be useful. /g -- Giuseppe Pascale TV & Connected Devices Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 14:39:42 UTC