- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 07:21:27 -0400
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- CC: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 9/9/14 7:04 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 9/8/14 11:54 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> On 9/8/14 9:47 AM, Jeff Jaffe wrote: >>> If the HTML Chairs believe that this document would satisfy the >>> conditions they can propose to the Director to use the WHATWG document >>> and explain why it fulfills the normative references policy. >> >> Current status: >> >> An unversioned snapshot is available here: >> >> http://url.spec.whatwg.org/ >> >> A versioned snapshot is available here: >> >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/url/raw-file/default/Overview.html > > The HTMLWG agreed to use the WHATWG URL spec as a normative reference in > the HTML5 CR. As far as I know (and please correct me if I am wrong), > that reference resulted in no issues or bugs from implementers and that > reference resulted in no issues or bugs during the CR's interop testing. > The Draft HTML5 Proposed Recommendation used during the HTMLG's CfC to > publish a PR of HTML5 also uses the WHATWG URL spec as a normative > reference and no related issues were raised during the CfC. > > As such, it seems inconsistent with respect to the NRP (as well as > adding a bunch of "make work") to now assert the WHATWG's URL spec > cannot be used as a normative reference in the HTML5 PR and REC. Again, > I think it would be helpful if you would please identify those parts of > the NRP that disqualify this version of the URL spec from being used in > the PR and REC. The key words in the final sentence are "this version of the URL spec". It would also have been helpful to get a statement of stability from those that produced the spec. The original plan was to get that from the webapps working group via a CfC. > -Thanks, AB - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2014 11:21:56 UTC