- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 16:49:39 -0400
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "David (Standards) Singer" <singer@apple.com>
- CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 9/12/2014 5:39 PM, Robin Berjon wrote: > On 12/09/2014 15:39 , Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> On 9/12/14, 8:48 AM, Jeff Jaffe wrote: >>> Thanks Boris. So the process issue that we should work on is: >>> >>> How to motivate the W3C Community and WGs to expeditiously and >>> consistently issue errata? Correct? >> >> That would be a good issue to work on, yes. > > I heartily agree with Boris but I would like to strengthen the idea > further. I think that these might be two different Issues for the issue tracker. If we find a way to address both issues then fine - but one should not be a dependency for the other. > > It is understandable that the first version of a given specification > may require time because it often requires banging heads together a > fair bit and trying out ideas. However, once there is a sufficiently > stable release to start from, it ought to be possible to produce the > following iterations in relatively short order, including both errata > and progressive addition of features. > > For sufficiently well established parts of the platform, we ought to > be able to issue yearly (or even less) recommendations that simply > include the parts that the WG has been working on that happen to be > interoperably implemented at that time. It would be better than having > to wait n years, having to maintain errata in addition to the improved > document, and it would help avoid second-system syndrome. >
Received on Saturday, 13 September 2014 20:49:58 UTC