Re: RfC: LCWD of W3C DOM4; deadline July 31

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Domenic Denicola <
domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

>  And one should anticipate objections at the PR transition if the
> normative reference to the original spec is removed.
>

Sure, we can have dueling objections, provided you have a W3C Member ready
to vote NO on PR and also have a policy or technical rationale in hand.


>
> On Jul 10, 2014, at 9:31, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>   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 19:35:37 UTC