Re: PSA: publishing new WD of URL spec

Hi Marcos,

On 11/09/2014 17:19 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
> 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.

I will address your points below, but I will repeat what I told Domenic: 
I don't think progress can be made by talking about stuff in the 
abstract. I believe in iterated progress. To put it differently, I think 
this should be a living commitment to a better relationship and not some 
finalised thing before any action is taken.

Based on that I would like to get, and I think it is quite reasonable, 
agreement that we can go ahead and publish something better than what 
there was before (surely better than what *is* there) and iterate on 
that (as fast as possible) to get it all good.

Makes sense?

> 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.

As announced on spec-prod and discussed with CSS recently, Philippe has 
been working on an automated publisher. My understanding is that he 
hopes to have a prototype by TPAC, and to ship in early 2015 (likely 
with some guinea pigs having earlier access).

Please provide input to that project (in its own thread).

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

Is there any reason to use anything other than tests + implementations?

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

I have been advocating a software model for specs for so long that 
you're probably tired of hearing it; but I think we can apply the 
release/development branching here.

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

Why would you restrict that to imported snapshots?

We're looking at blanket-preventing that for dated TR; anyone can add 
<meta> robots noindex to TR drafts. I'm certainly happy to do that for 
URL, DOM, and likely a bunch of others when they next get published.

> 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?

Do you want something better than the big red box?

> 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?

So what's been done for DOM and URL has been to just list those editors. 
I'd be happy to remove the snapshotting editors but I think that's not 
possible *yet* if the original authors aren't on the WG.

Apart from that, it should be included in the SotD and in the big red box.


Robin Berjon - - @robinberjon

Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 15:56:37 UTC