Re: w3process-ISSUE-124 (WHATWG-blacklist): Normative Reference policy should explicitly black list WHATWG specs [Normative Reference Policy]

On 09/08/2014 01:52 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 9/8/14 1:04 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Given that (a) the person who opened this issue indicated that he was
>> opposed to it
> Hi Sam, sorry but I'm not following you here.

Simply put: is anybody in favor of making the change that this issue 
purports to propose?  If not, it should be summarily closed IMHO.

> I created the Issue and besides the scenario Jeff mentioned,

Point of order: it was the scenario that you mentioned:

> the other
> scenario I recall is the Progress Events spec needing to replace a
> normative reference to a WHATWG spec before the PR was allowed to be
> published. I suppose one could certainly argue if the decision (to not
> permit such references) is made by the AC, the CEO, the Director, ...
> and/or some combination. Regardless, since this is indeed the practice
> (again, as I have experienced it), I think it would be helpful to
> clearly document this practice in the NRP so other actors (Chairs,
> Editors, Public, etc.) know about this constraint (PRs cannot include
> normative references to WHATWG specs) and can plan accordingly.

I can't speak to that scenario, but I will support Jeff's assertion that 
your comments regarding the current state of WHATWG's URL specification 
were inaccurate.

Can you provide a link which describes to what normative reference the 
Progress Events specification proved to be problematic and why?

> -AB
> [1] <>

- Sam Ruby

Received on Monday, 8 September 2014 18:12:40 UTC