Re: Comment tracking for navigation-timing CR [Was: Re: publishing new WD of URL spec]

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