- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:37:01 +0900
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>
> On Mar 15, 2019, at 1:27, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org> wrote: >> Lastly, you don’t distinguish the WG’s working draft from the W3C’s Evergreen Rec, and I think it important that we do. Most of the time they will be identical, but one can easily imagine a WG that decides to revert the ES after an FO is upheld, but keep a WD that has the problem still in it, in the new tech they want to introduce, while they work on modifying it to satisfy the decision. I don’t want a WD in that state to have no hint that there was an FO decision against it. Makes sense? > > It does make sense. But if one look at the definition of the WD and compare it to the definition of ER, as outlined in the proposal, it should help answer this question. Most notably, a WD may not have consensus of the WG or implementation experience. Having said that, once the proposal for ER gets more refined, we should revisit this imho. David, in this context did you mean the Editor's Draft? —Florian
Received on Friday, 15 March 2019 04:37:29 UTC