- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 09:10:56 -0400
- To: Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
The considerations that the Director follows in deciding normative references is found in [1] [1] http://www.w3.org/2013/09/normative-references This document was reviewed by the W3C Advisory Committee a year ago. Other comments in-line. Jeff On 9/8/2014 8:18 AM, Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker wrote: > w3process-ISSUE-124 (WHATWG-blacklist): Normative Reference policy should explicitly black list WHATWG specs [Normative Reference Policy] I disagree with Art. I think it would be a bad policy to blacklist any particular organization. > > http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/124 > > Raised by: Arthur Barstow > On product: Normative Reference Policy > > If a group has consensus that an "external reference" (such as a WHATWG spec) meets the group's requirements, then with respect to publishing a Technical, such a reference should be permitted. However, based on my conversations with Consortium staff last week, the Director will NOT permit a Proposed Recommendation to include a normative reference to a WHATWG spec. This statement is incorrect. The considerations that the Director uses is document [1] above. If there is a normative reference made to a WHATWG document, it would not be impossible to use that normative reference as long as the document fulfilled conditions in [1]. > > Although I disagree with the Director's position here (because I think the processes should defer to the opinion of the group and implementors), the Issue is the Normative Reference Policy [NRP] should explicitly identify those external groups the Director has explicitly blacklisted. As such, and to help avoid confusion, set expectations, etc., NRP should be updated to explicitly blacklist WHATWG. > > > >
Received on Monday, 8 September 2014 13:11:12 UTC