Re: Reminder regarding normative references

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Wendy Seltzer <> wrote:

> A reminder that has come up in some recent transition calls: When moving
> a spec to Candidate Recommendation, we look to see that the normative
> references are to documents of equivalent stability[1] -- ideally, also
> CR, if they're W3C documents. So if you're moving a document forward,
> it's a good idea to look periodically at the references and ping the
> other working groups where those are being developed to make sure that
> dependencies are moving at the pace we need. (This also helps to satisfy
> the "wide review" requirements.)

A corollary to this is that "stability" should be balanced against
"accuracy". That is,
is pretty stable, but we ought not reference it today, as it doesn't
represent what browsers are doing.

What do you/the director/his delegates suggest that we do if we'd like to
reference concepts that aren't yet present in W3C specifications?

As a concrete example, I'm going to send a transition request for Secure
Contexts shortly. It uses the "creation URL" concept which was recently
added to WHATWG's HTML ( That
concept is not present in the W3C's HTML (nor is it clear to me how to get
it added :) ). How do you suggest that we proceed?

+public-webapps, as I believe specs like Service Worker have similar
problems (and, in this case, the exact same problem).


Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2015 07:15:51 UTC