- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 13:34:49 -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+ddKuiSZ509EzveaX4-_78=+7Fo1jz2sGobAEgRgG7tfQ@mail.gmail.com>
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