Re: Snapshots (was: w3process-ISSUE-124)

Yes, I think that's helpful; they're not currently binding in any way, and
they don't really indicate "consensus" (unless "ready for implementation"
really means "we all talked it out, hugged, and we think it's good now."
 There should also be a status that says "this is baked, done, shipped, and
is incredibly unlikely to change."  (AKA really long-term normative).

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
>
> While it is potentially just adding fuel to a fire, I will mention
> that as a developer, I like the idea that WHATWG had with
> implementation status flags on sections and I feel like that helps
> what you're saying Sam.
>
> --
> Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
>
>