RE: WHATWG/W3C collaboration proposal and the discussion of Issue-141

Comments inline below
Steve Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Appelquist [mailto:appelquist@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 9:58 AM
> To: public-w3process@w3.org
> Cc: Domenic Denicola
> Subject: Re: WHATWG/W3C collaboration proposal
> 
> Strongly support the effort to build a sustainable collaboration model between
> WHATWG and W3C.
> 
> > On 25 Nov 2014, at 16:54, Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me> wrote:
> >
> > 2. The snapshot must have a title, or subtitle, that clearly reflects the
> purposes of the snapshot, and that it should not be used for implementations.
> We want to avoid "snarky", but something like "For IPR purposes" or "Not for
> implementations" would be important. (For those interested in commit-level
> snapshots for reference purposes, we can get the WHATWG producing and
> hosting such snapshots very quickly---within a week, I would anticipate. See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Oct/0066.html for
> previous discussion of this.)
> 
> Only commenting on the above point: there is a (possibly philosophical)
> difference of opinion on which spec “implementers" can or should be pointing
> to. I’m wondering if it’s possible to come to a compromise solution that does
> not require us to resolve this difference of opinion. For example, the snapshot
> could say “This is a snapshot. Living version is [here]” and point to a “living diff”
> between the snapshot and the living version (so that anyone can determine
> just what the most up to date changes are), with some wording about “we
> recommend implementers reference the living version for the most up to date
> changes.” … rather than saying “this is not for implementers” or “this is only for
> IPR purposes.” ?  That way you leave it up to the implementer / developer to
> decide based on their own needs whether to use the snapshot or the living
> spec?
[SZ] It would appear to me from Sam's comments that this issue does not need to be solved for Sam's experiment to proceed. Having said that, there is another Process Issue, Issue 141 Improve Errata management in W3C 
  http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/141

to which this topic seems relevant. The point is to allow Process Track Documents, including RECs, to point elsewhere for more information about "errata" (or in this case changes since the "snapshot" was taken). Text has been proposed to encourage Working Groups (in this case snapshot takers) to stay up-to-date with issues resolutions that occur after the snapshot was taken. It has been proposed that, in principle, such errata references could point to a "living standard". 

It would seem to be more productive to have the discussion of the relationship of snapshots to living standards in that context rather than in the discussion of Sam's experiment (where Sam does not consider it to be an issue). 
> 
> Dan
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 18:41:59 UTC