- From: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 18:07:53 -0800
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAD73mdJKvv=U3SD-z5AF0iXK9FO88awRPYGtxFE_rAMKt-7_hQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: >> > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I object to this publication because of this change: >> >> >> >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/rev/2341e31323a4 >> >> >> >> pushed with a misleading commit message. >> > >> > since you don't say what is misleading, and since commit messages are >> > irrelevant for W3C process, this objection is immaterial >> >> Ms2ger objected to the change, not the commit message, so your >> objection to the objection is misplaced. >> >> However, the commit message isn't long, so it's not difficult to >> puzzle out what ey might be referring to. In this case, it's the >> implication that changing a bunch of normative references from WHATWG >> specs to W3C copies of the specs is somehow necessary "according to >> pubrules". >> > > Then whomever ms2ger is should say so. In any case, there is no reason to > reference a WHATWG document if there is a W3C counterpart. > Sure there is if the W3C version is stale, as is the case here. That commit replaced a link to http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/, last updated roughly a week ago, with a link to http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/ which is dated January 17th and is missing an entire section (section 6). It also replaced a link to http://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/# with http://www.w3.org/TR/cors/# which is similarly out of date by the better part of a year and lacking handling for some HTTP status codes. Every single reference updated in this commit changed the document to point to an out-of-date and less valuable resource. It seems that you, like the author of the commit message, mistakenly think it's a goal to replace all links to point to W3C resources even when they are strictly worse. That's not in the W3C pub rules or a good idea. - James > >
Received on Sunday, 2 December 2012 02:08:21 UTC