- From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 23:46:30 -0000
- To: "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Cc: "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, "Robin Berjon" <robin@w3.org>, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:15:59 -0000, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote: > > IMO, LC should absolutely not be viewed as stable (only for marketing > reasons or to deliberately deceive). It just means that it won't get any > more features at that particular moment - but the stability of those > features is not guaranteed in any way… But this is what people are looking for actually, a spec that 1) are not expecting to see major features added 2) whose features can surely be modified but only if there is a good reason for it (e.g. they were very broken). Currently the editor draft doesn't give you this sort of guarantee. So I agree that spec evolves, but is still useful to know if a particular document is on a "stabilization path" or if it's still evolving. And for people not involved in the everyday work these sort of milestones are the only indication of this sort. -- Giuseppe Pascale Product Manager TV & Connected Devices Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 23:47:05 UTC