W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > October 2014

Snapshots (was: w3process-ISSUE-124)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 14:20:58 -0400
Message-ID: <542EE90A.8020700@intertwingly.net>
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:


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 

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:21 UTC