- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 23:23:53 +0100
- To: "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>, "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>
- Cc: "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com>, "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>, "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:13:53 +0100, Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com> wrote: > No one is arguing that web standards are final and immutable or that > we're all going to finish this soon and walk away. But it also isn't > that every morning we throw away our Web Browsers and replace them with > something completely different. Everything is not in flux. > > In W3C, the output of a Working Group is a Recommendation. Nothing > about it is final other than that particular dated version is done and > the next version will have a different version number and date. At that > point in time, it's what is agreed on after careful review. For > something like HTML, I think it would be better for a Recommendation to > come out every year (rather than have the last one be 1999). Nothing in > the process implies that the technology freezes or that there will never > be an updated version. Nothing in it implies it wouldn't be a good idea > to implement drafts that are later than the recommendation if you think > they're worth using. This is indeed very reasonable. As I mentioned before, we are constrained on resources so either 1) publishing a Recommendation each year needs to become trivial, or 2) we need to find resources that fork an editor's draft every so often and take it along the required steps. Finding resources is something we have been unable to do for the past five or so years. Dominique seems to think it is a real possibility again and I am happy for him to try, but I think as a group we should focus on 1. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 21:24:32 UTC