- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:45:46 -0400
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
- Cc: "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
I like the general idea. More comments below. On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 16:26 +0200, Robin Berjon wrote: > As most good ideas it can turn into a meaningless automatism after the > reasons behind it have been forgotten. I think that it should be noted > that given the availability and broad distribution of a public editors' > draft, the Heartbeat Requirement becomes meaningless. TR-space should > just be editors' drafts — modulo some small differences and additions. > > There are three snapshots that are required for the patent policy: FPWD, > LC, and REC. > > For familiarity, I am assuming git concepts here. But they can be > translated to another system (though git would seem like a likely > implementation choice). One point that I'm not sure you're addressing: the never-ending tension between the recommendations and the living specs, e.g. HTML 5.0 and HTML 5.1 for example. HTML 5.1 is for implementers: it contains the latest thinking and directions. We also like to have users looking at 5.1 for ideas and feedback. HTML 5.0 is for lawyers, product labeling, and for normative references. Users should also look at it to understand which features is more stable. There is always the possibility of pointing users only to HTML 5.1 and have marks in it to indicate which ones are part of HTML 5.0. Other variations are also possible (using caniuse for stable marks, etc.). It seems to me that more guidances to working groups and editors to address the tension would be helpful as part of the publication approach. CSS tries to address part of this by using shortnames (eg /TR/css-text and /TR/css-text-3) but that doesn't provide relief to the editors who have to maintain two editors' drafts. Philippe
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 14:45:50 UTC