/TR page was Re: WICG Incubation vs CSSWG Process

Suggestions for improvement would be more useful if they referred to what is actually there now, and how it might be profitably changed.

25.12.2016, 21:08, "Michael Champion" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>:
> Likewise it would be good to figure out how the W3C WG process or the CSS culture could be tweaked to ensure that the w3.org/TR page doesn’t remain littered with supposed Rec-track specs that aren’t going anywhere because proponents lost interest, don’t solve a real world problem, or nobody plans to implement them. That’s one of the problems WICG was intended to solve, by not putting specs on the Rec track until they had sustained interest, demonstrably solved a real problem, and had implementer buy in. There’s surely other ways to solve that problem besides insisting on incubation in WICG, so let’s discuss.

The phrase "The TR page" is like "my twitter feed" - it makes a great soundbite, but is almost meaningless as a thing you can look at and describe. There are many ways to view w3.org/TR already. They are largely driven by scripts that work on a document called TR.rdf - which contains a large amount of RDF information about specifications that have been formally published by W3C, mostly automatically generated from the documents as they are published.

If you look at the page in its default view, you will not see a single specification - just a list of technologies, some of which correspond to specifications and some of which are indecipherable to most people who are working on the web today. 

A simple improvement would be for the *default* view to include specifications in active development and Recommendations that are not "obsolete", and the already-present option to see other views. That's a small amount of technical work on the page as it is, requiring no change to the process and a relatively minor one to the culture and procedure.

cheers

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - standards - Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Monday, 26 December 2016 11:38:19 UTC