- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:38:47 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, nathan@webr3.org, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
On 8/18/2011 9:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:00:28 +0200, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: >> I would add to this discussion that we need to be mindful of where we >> are in the development cycle. >> >> Certainly, in the early phases of development it does not yet make >> sense to converge to a fixed point. We have now recognized that >> reality and have introduced Community Groups to facilitate >> specification development in areas of rapid innovation which are too >> early for standardization. >> >> And I agree Danny, that as a spec matures and stabilizes, it is quite >> useful for the ecosystem to converge to a fixed point - a versioned >> spec. And to be sure, there will continue to be innovation beyond >> which would lead to the next version. > > For convergence you typically need to specification to evolve as well. > Because with convergence you typically get better understanding of the > problem space and holes in the specification. > > (And then parts of specifications become obsolete if we later decide > on an alternative way of doing something, and it would be beneficial > if specifications were updated directly to reflect that new direction > so people do not end up implementing the wrong thing. E.g. that can > happen now (and does happen) with HTML4, DOM1*, DOM2*, DOM3*, CSS1, etc.) > > At TPAC this year, the agenda is being driven by participants who will be proposing brainstorming sessions of various types. Let me know if you want to lead a discussion on how we get better on "obsoleting" existing specs (or parts thereof).
Received on Thursday, 18 August 2011 14:38:41 UTC