Re: Reference to the HTML specification

On 9/5/11 12:11 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> On Monday, 5 September 2011 at 20:54, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>    
>> On 2011-09-05 16:13, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>      
>>> ...
>>> Most don't, in my experience. Specially those from other consortia. They love cling the dated specs and then pretend they are somehow more stable then the Editor's Draft. It's simply nonsense, but the W3C Process document seems to codify this.
>>>        
>>>> bleeding edge quite often. It's a game of "who can have the latest and greatest first and the best".
>>>>          
>>>   Not always so. Other industries believe that having a stable reference point will cut down their interop issues (specially for environments where it's difficult to update software). I know, how ridiculous and illogical is that?!
>>> ...
>>>        
>> Well, dated and immutable specs *indeed* are more stable. If you need
>> "stability" as in "what it says today it will say tomorrow as well" then
>> dated snapshots are the right thing to use.
>>
>> It's like slapping a 1.0 on a piece of software. It says nothing about its stability: just that someone slapped "1.0" on it. There are only a few milestones that matter in the spec process: FPWD, LC, and PR - but links to those IRP-relevant snapshots could be hidden away where only the lawyers, or really interested parties, could find them.
>>      

For what it's worth, attorneys have been patching long before computers 
were introduced. Many practices receive continuous updates of actual 
pieces of paper which are carefully pasted into the reference library.

Lets get a public version repository on the official w3c website. They 
pulled off incorporating bugzilla, surely they can pull off 
incorporating git. It's quite easy.

-Charles

Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 18:33:27 UTC