- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 14:20:58 -0400
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 10/03/2014 01:25 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > BUT, snapshots are terrible for interoperability. Implementations > referencing old documents leads to implementation bugs, leads to lack of > compatibility, basically, snapshots for Web techs are actively harmful to > the goal of any standards organisation, namely, interoperalibily. So it's > critical that any standards organisation be really careful to not spread > confusion by having multiple versions of its specifications, or, if it > does, be exceedingly unambiguous in its labeling to make sure that nobody > in their right mind, other than patent lawyers and government officials, > would ever consider referencing such a specification. FYI, Anne and I have been having a discussion on this topic, and seem to be converging on a different conclusion: http://intertwingly.net/blog/2014/09/16/The-URL-Mess#c1412200341 As a part of my reply to that comment, I state: "In my opinion, we need to start by looking at the part that is often left out of the “Living Standard” discussions. It is not one-dimensional choice between up-to-date and stale. The problem space is actually multi-dimensional. Proven vs experimental is another dimension." If you scroll back to an earlier part of that page, you will see the following statement by me: "While I am optimistic that at some point in the future the W3C will feel comfortable referencing stable and consensus driven specifications produced by the WHATWG, it is likely that some changes will be required to one or both organizations for this to occur" I'm actively working to see what changes would be required, and intend to report back when that effort is complete. - Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 18:21:26 UTC