W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Blocker for PR: links to HTML5 spec

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:05:47 -0400
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1301954747.19734.39.camel@chacal>
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 21:48 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > Because the HTML5 spec won't be a REC before that.
> Why does that matter?
> HTML5 as published by the W3C is more stable and mature than the HTML4 
> REC, and you can reference that, right? So why not reference HTML5?

More stable by whose criteria? As far as I know, the HTML4 spec doesn't
change anymore, unlike the HTML5 spec.

> Is there a process rule that says you cannot? If so, where is it? Can you 
> provide a URL to that rule?

Does this specification have any normative references to W3C
specifications that are not yet Proposed Recommendations? Note: In
general, documents do not advance to Recommendation with normative
references to W3C specifications that are not yet Recommendations.

> Also, if there is such a rule, why not change it? We should obviously not 
> be making decisions like copying spec text, along with the risks that 
> entails, purely to work around a process we control.

We're trying to go around the instability factor.

> If there really is such a rule and you can't change it, why not reference 
> the WHATWG HTML spec instead? It's already a Standard, the most mature 
> state a spec can get in the WHATWG, so presumably there's no problem with 
> maturity, right? The process clearly doesn't require that you reference 
> only W3C specs, since it references both an IETF spec and an ECMA spec 
> already.

The WHATWG spec is even more unstable than the W3C one, so I don't see
the point of referencing it.

> > > So what difference does it make if you depend on the HTML spec or not?
> > 
> > The difference is that we will be allowed to move REC if we don't rely 
> > on a WD normatively. If we keep the current dependency, we cannot move.
> Working around a process you control is a clear indicator that the process 
> is broken. Fix the process.

What you see as broken is there for a reason. It's difficult to pretend
that a spec is stable if it relies on unstable ones. If HTML5 changes
the navigation algorithm, the Navigation Timing spec won't make sense
anymore. By copying it, we're at least ensuring that it still makes

Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 22:05:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:01:07 UTC