Re: CfC: publish Widgets P&C as a "Proposed Edited Recommendation"; deadline August 8

Chaals, Marcos,

Based on this discussion, I concluded this CfC has failed to show we 
have consensus. As such, after you two have agreed on a version of the 
spec that satisfies all of Chaals' concerns, my recommendation is we 
start a new CfC.

-Thanks, AB

On 7/26/12 9:52 AM, ext Chaals McCathieNevile wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:17:42 +0200, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 25 July 2012 at 19:02, Chaals McCathieNevile wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:26:44 +0200, Arthur Barstow 
>>> <art.barstow@nokia.com (mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Marcos would like to publish a "Proposed Edited Recommendation" 
>>> [PER] > of the Widget Packaging and XML Configuration spec [REC] to
>>> > incorporate the spec's errata and this is a Call for Consensus to do
>>> > so.
>>>
>>> Currently I object. I would support the publication if:
>>>
>>> 1. It restored the pointer to an external errata document (Marcos is
>>> clever, but there may still be errata) and
>>
>> Not sure what you mean here (and not just about being clever!:) )? 
>> There is a pointer to errata…
>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/errata.html
>> It's right at the top of the document? What am I missing?
>
> The new version says that it incorporates the errata there, but 
> removes the statement that any further errata might be found at the 
> same place. I suggest reinstating the text that was taken out, since 
> there may be a need for errata on this document (personally I would 
> prefer to see a new version, allowing for example internationalisation 
> of more elements)
>
>>> 2. It restored the status of the document to cover patent policy and 
>>> where to send feedback and
>>
>> Ah, sorry… SoTD was from the editor's draft. I need to find a 
>> boilerplate for a PER. I'm going to copy the one from XML 5th Ed., 
>> but it's a bit of work so I'll do it RSN.
>
> OK, please do.
>
>>> 3. It fixes the normative references to include authors and point to
>>> stable versions.
>>
>> I will only link to "stable" versions for normative references - 
>> informative references don't matter.
>
> I can live with that. However I note that it is useful to know what 
> version of something that you used as an informative reference was the 
> one you actually read. HTML5 is different from what it was when P&C 
> was published. For most cases it doesn't matter (it is useful to have 
> a link to the latest and greatest version with all the brilliant ideas 
> the editor had after a saturday-night binge included), but for careful 
> use of the documents it can actually make a material difference.
>
>> Re editors: can't find anything in the process document that requires 
>> them to be added.
>
> 1. It is a generally accepted convention that assists in recognising a 
> reference, particularly from a printed version (yes, people still 
> print specifications, often. There are sound reasons why this is 
> likely to continue for some years).
> 2. Many of these publications are essentially volunteer work. The 
> efforts of the editors (or the money of their employers that supports 
> them taking on the work) are often motivated in part by the fact that 
> their name is cited by convention. I don't see the use case for 
> breaking this convention, and the small benefit that it provides to 
> those who edit specifications.
>
>> Of course, you are more than invited to add them yourself to the
>> spec if you really want.
>
> Sure, I can do that.
>
>> They were in the REC, so you can copy/paste them from there (or email 
>> me the markup and I'll paste them in for you). However, I see no use 
>> case for including them given that there is a hyperlink to their spec 
>> (which already lists them).
>
> Cheers
>
> Chaals
>

Received on Thursday, 9 August 2012 11:53:04 UTC