Re: Supporting levels and level-less drafts in /TR, bikeshed

For a non-W3C perspective...

The PCISIG has a concept of Maturity Level. There are defined rules for what must be defined for a given Maturity Level (concepts, mechanisms, exact message and register bit layouts, etc.).

This "level" is orthogonal to the Spec Revision. For example, we're currently working on PCIe Base 4.0 Maturity Level 0.7 (to be followed by 0.9 then 1.0 unless we discover a need to change something that should have been frozen in an earlier maturity level).

My version of Respec will eventually key off Maturity Level and insert the appropriate boilerplate text. It currently just labels every page appropriately. 

Steveg

> On Apr 25, 2016, at 8:31 PM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On April 26, 2016 at 1:32:38 AM, Wendy Seltzer (wseltzer@w3.org) wrote:
>> Hi Spec-Prod,
>> 
>> We've been having discussion whether every spec needs to have a "level"
>> indicator. I understand that CSS has moved in that direction, even for
>> "Level 1" drafts, while some other groups have moved to levels only
>> after v1.
> 
> I think most people (inside the W3C and outside) don't have any idea what constitutes a "level" vs "edition" vs "version". It just leads to confusion and frustration, because searching for a feature might mean you end up a the wrong "level" or because you don't find the feature at whatever level. I know I've experienced this frustration trying to find CSS stuff (sorry, Tab!)
> 
> You don't need to go far to find developers thinking that there is such a thing as a CSS "Version 3"... when is CSS4 coming is a long running joke on twitter (I'm not even sure it's a joke... and I've even seen Tab tweet out in frustration that there is no CSS3).  
> 
> I've also been doing standards for about a decade now, and I still have no idea what CSS Levels mean - to an outside-insider, they appear to be completely arbitrary and even more frustrating that versions: does a level obsolete a version? Does it build on it? Can Super Mario jump onto that level or will he reach that level.. because games have levels? is that what levels mean?  
> 
> We should just move to living standards and stop with the levels/versions/dates nonsense altogether (as the WHATWG has done): one stable URL is all you need.   
> 
>> Is there a common view on whether to use levels or not, and if so, how
>> to indicate them?
> 
> I for one, would be violently against requiring levels for all specs (sorry again, Tab!). I think any kind of versioning is a terrible idea (tho I'm a fan of tagging versions in Git, which is actually useful). 
> 
> However, if certain groups want to continue to use them, they should (knowing that they confuse hell out of people like me and people in general). 
> 
> 
> 
> 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution
is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2016 05:14:01 UTC