- From: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 07:58:08 -0500
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: "Jacobs B. Ian" <ij@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Nathan,
Le 15 févr. 2011 à 07:27, Nathan a écrit :
> It would be great to see the two approaches balanced such that announcements are made like "HTML has just been updated, features a,b have been added, bugs h,j,k have been fixed and z has been deprecated".
What would be the criteria for these features? There are many possible ways of
* Interoperability tables?
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Implementations_in_Web_browsers
http://caniuse.com/
* Under Patent Policy?
# Small feature specifications
(extracted from the OpenWeb "wiki" specification which is HTML living standard.)
* Benefits:
- Easier, quick to publish
- can be put in shape (not the content) by someone else
- small target for test suites
- small target for interoperability reports
- easier to publish tutorials
* Drawbacks:
- reference and dependencies hells.
- consistency: easier to publish comes with we need to be
quicker to fix an error.
- more legacy documents around after a few years/months
- IANAL. Patent policy not designed?, set up
for this kind of things.
- W3C staff work more difficult (publishing, announcements)
in a limited resources environment. (Can be fixed)
--
Karl Dubost
Montréal, QC, Canada
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 12:58:27 UTC