- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:08:15 -0400
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcoscaceres@gmail.com>
- CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Marcos, On 9/16/11 10:14 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote: > > On Friday, 16 September 2011 at 20:04, Arthur Barstow wrote: > >> Marcos, All, >> >> To clearly state that WebApps' work on the Widget Requirements and >> Widget Landscape documents has ended, I propose they be published as >> Working Group Notes: >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-land/ >> http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-reqs/ > I think only the requirements should be published, because it was actually pretty useful in informing the standards development process. It's actually a pretty good document, if I do say so myself :) FYI, there is some precedence for publishing Requirements docs as Recommendations (e.g. OWL UCs and Reqs) . If we want to go that route, it would presumably mean publishing a LC, skipping CR (not applicable for this spec) and then going to PR and REC. WDYT? Too much "make work"? > The landscape document was just created to inform the standardisation process of what was considered best practice at the time. If it's a W3C requirement that it be published as a WG Note, then it should be published as is (i.e., I don't wanna do any work on it unless I really have to). I don't feel real strongly here (and I will check with PLH on the publishing requirements). Publishing a WG Note does make a clear statement that work on the spec has stopped. We could also update the SotD which is quite old (e.g. still points to the appformats lists). [BTW, I would be willing to help with the edits.] -AB
Received on Monday, 19 September 2011 12:08:53 UTC