W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2014

PSA: publishing new WD of URL spec

From: Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 11:19:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAci2aDmpd4Or+=Neg9yuLon_gQ4kUvrN+uOYeKCT_358mtZOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thursday, September 11, 2014, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','robin@w3.org');>> wrote:

> On 10/09/2014 18:48 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>> This is a formal objection to publication of this specification.
>> The rationale for the objection was already sent to the wwwprocess list.
>>
>
> Would you lift yours if Domenic lifted his?


Only once I have clear answers to the following (and see actual proof). I
know you already addressed some of this in your previous email to Dominic.

1. How will the spec be kept up to date? i.e., what technical means will be
put in place by the w3c to assure that the latest is always on TR.

2. How will the W3C determine when a spec is ready for LC/CR?

3. How will the W3C cope with changes occurring to the living document
after CR? (See Boris' emails)

4. Will the W3C prevent search engines from finding the copy/pasted
document? Particularly any static snapshots.

5. What indicators (e.g., the big red box) will be put into the spec to
indicate that the WHATWG version is the canonical version?

6. Out of respect for both the Editor and the WHATWG as a standards
consortium, how will the W3C attribute authorship of the documents and well
as show that the document originates from the WHATWG?

(Ps: Your claim about 12 step programs have been debunked by science. See
[1] :))

[1]
http://www.npr.org/2014/03/23/291405829/with-sobering-science-doctor-debunks-12-step-recovery
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 15:26:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:26 UTC