- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:31:05 -0600
- To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+emUmjp3Oira0dJJVgez7jNepZQJXctJoO3htP7M-g2aQ@mail.gmail.com>
IETF documents are well accepted, and have a known IPR policy. WHATWG documents are neither. One should anticipate objections at the PR transition if a normative reference to a WHATWG remains in a document. On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Domenic Denicola < domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 10, 2014, at 9:26, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > > > 1. The language "nuked from orbit soon" and "will be nuked" needs to > be rewritten. This level of informality is inappropriate for a W3C REC > track document. Better to say "expect to be deprecated" or similar. > 2. It is annoying that a search for "Warning!" in the document fails > (at least on Chrome and Firefox) because it is injected from a content > style property. > 3. There remains a normative reference to the WHATWG "URL" > specification, which needs to be resolved before moving to REC. It would be > well advised to describe the expected process for doing this in the SoTD > section. > > > My understanding is that normative references to WHATWG or IETF documents > are fine in RECs, according to Tantek at least. > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> The HTMLWG asked WebApps to review the July 10 LCWD of W3C DOM4: >> >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-dom-20140710/> >> >> This LC addresses eight [Bugs] in the May [CR]. A diff between the CR and >> LC is available at [Diff]. >> >> Individual WG members are encouraged to provide individual feedback. >> >> If anyone in WebApps wants to propose an official group response, please >> do so ASAP, in reply to this e-mail so the group can discuss it. >> >> Comments should be sent to www-dom @ w3.org by July 31. Presumably, the >> group also welcomes data about "silent reviews", f.ex. "I reviewed section >> N.N and have no comments". >> >> -Thanks, AB >> >> [CR] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/CR-dom-20140508/> >> >> [Bugs] <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_status= >> UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_ >> status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED& >> bug_status=CLOSED&component=DOM4&list_id=40501&product= >> HTML%20WG&query_format=advanced> >> >> [Diff] <http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F% >> 2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2014%2FCR-dom-20140508%2F&doc2=http%3A% >> 2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2014%2FWD-dom-20140710%2F> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 16:31:53 UTC