On 11/11/2019 11:24 PM, Florian Rivoal wrote: > > >> On Nov 12, 2019, at 6:59, Michael Champion >> <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com >> <mailto:Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>> wrote: >> >> If there’s a use case for the charter / AC insisting that a WG >> restrict itself from using the new EverTeal process improvements, I’m >> not seeing it > > We have things like the EPUB spec, which made CSS2.1 minus some > specific features a normative dependency. They didn't make CSS overall > a dependency, they made a specific feature set (defined by CSS2.1 > minus some things) a dependency. There's been other cases of this, for > example HBBTV's normative dependency on CSS. I don't remember others > off the top of my head, but I am sure there are more. These things > aren't interested in a normative dependency on something with an open > scope. They explicitly want to lock the scope down. If we have a kind > of REC that can take bugfixes but not new features, they'll depend on > that. If we cannot, they'll take normative dependencies on dated > versions, miss out on bug fixes. In the worst case, this could end up > causing a fork in the technology if people are particularly diligent > about implementing the details of the dated version referenced. Isn't CSS a group that we would expect that the WG be permitted to use ET? > > WCAG is another example of something where fixing the scope (while > allowing bug fixes) seems desirable. > > —Florian
Received on Tuesday, 12 November 2019 13:32:26 UTC