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

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

From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 15:26:11 +0000
To: "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1412436370769.30482@microsoft.com>
> should document outstanding issues,
> should provide information about implementations known to the Working Group

I think I've argued in the past against making these MUST rather than should, but perhaps we should reconsider.  Or at a minimum, more strongly encourage adopting something with the WHATWG practice in chair training, best practices documents, Team review criteria for advancing a spec to CR or PR, etc.

As David Singer pointed out, tooling to make it easier for stakeholders to register to be and actually  to be notified when a feature changes or stabilizes would make this less burdensome on W3C editors.  

From: chaals@yandex-team.ru <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2014 2:32 AM
To: Brian Kardell; Sam Ruby
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
Subject: Re: Snapshots (was: w3process-ISSUE-124)

03.10.2014, 20:46, "Brian Kardell" <bkardell@gmail.com>:

> 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.

I don't think this risks adding any fuel to a flame war - i believe there is violent agreement on this everywhere.

The current W3C Process says

A Public Working Draft is published on the W3C's Technical Reports page [TR] for review, [... and ...]

should document outstanding issues, and parts of the document on which the Working Group does not have consensus, ...

While this doesn't necessarily mean implementation status implementation contributes significantly to establishing consensus.

and for all advancements in status (this doesn't apply to making a new WD, but that strikes me as a bug we might want to fix)
should provide information about implementations known to the Working Group.

The precise details of exactly how to provide the information are probably best left to the Working Group or editors, although some common tools would be helpful.



Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Saturday, 4 October 2014 15:26:40 UTC

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