- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 06:31:22 +0000 (UTC)
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: > >> That sounds to me like a good reason to declare a freeze at last > >> call, and release an immutable "beta 1" on which comments can be > >> made. Then close the comment period on beta 1, and (potentially) > >> release a beta 2, etc. > > > > Unfortunately that would just mean that most people commenting on beta > > 1 would be reporting the same issues that have already been fixed. > > We've already seen this happen with the W3C version of the draft > > Then you're not putting up a big enough deprecation notice at the top! > Also, comments should be disabled once the comment period has closed. I think we're better off finding a mechanism (such as the one Joseph mentioned) that don't depend on the document staying static. That way we sidestep all the problems I describe above, and we don't ever waste people's times on issues that are already resolved. Basically I don't think it would ever really be beneficial to have people reviewing a version of the spec that isn't the most recent one, if we can help it. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 23:31:22 UTC