W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Objection to publishing DOM Parsing and Serialization (was Re: CfC: publish LCWD of DOM Parsing and Serialization; deadline December 3)

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 09:22:04 -0600
Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, "public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org" <public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AF804207-704E-46AB-A5A3-019EA377F272@w3.org>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>

On Dec 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:

> [ + IanJ; Bcc public-w3process since this thread is an instance of issue-71; (see <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013OctDec/0824.html> for the head of this thread) ]
> Ian, Yves,
> Please explain why W3C staff insist the following information (that some WebApps consider "substantive") in the DOM Parsing and Serialization ED must be removed from the document  before it can be published as a Technical Report (and please provide the URL of the relevant `process doc/rules` that substantiates your rationale):

Hi Art,

It comes as news to me that some in WebApps consider the placement of that information substantive. You have asked for published guidance for these references, which I will provide.


> [[
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/raw-file/tip/index.html>
> WHATWG Living Standard:
>   http://domparsing.spec.whatwg.org/
> ]]
> -Thanks, AB
> On 12/6/13 2:04 PM, ext James Robinson wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com <mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com>> wrote:
>>        Even worse is the removal of the reference to the source
>>        specification, given that you know that this is a contentious
>>        subject in this WG.
>>    Both Travis and I supported keeping that information in the
>>    boilerplate. The W3C Staff told us it must be removed before the
>>    LC could be published as at TR. (FYI, I filed a related Issue
>>    against the TR publication rules
>>    <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/71>. I think
>>    the public-w3process list is an appropriate place to discuss the
>>    Consortium's publication rules.)
>> If that's the requirement from the Team to publish as TR, then I object to publishing as a TR until the requirements are fixed.  If and when the publishing rules are fixed then we can consider proceeding again.
>> The spec text as currently exists is actively harmful since it forks the living standard without even having a reference to it.
>> - James

Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                                          +1 718 260 9447
Received on Saturday, 7 December 2013 15:22:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:52:58 UTC