Re: Selectors: hooks needed by DOM

On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 13:58 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> > One issue though: The W3C always look at issues related to stability
> > and patent commitments around specifications developed by other groups,
> > so we review normative references on a case-by-case basis. In this
> > case, DOM with Selectors API has issues with stability and patent
> > commitments. The W3C Director has instructed us not to reference
> > specifications showing such issues.

First, keep in mind here that this comment above is about normative
references from W3C Recommendations, not about documents in earlier
stages.

> Does this instruction have a link?

There is no such link at the moment. The best trace one can find on how
the Director approaches such normative reference is in an email I sent
in reply to a direct request by a Working Chair back in July:
 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2013JulSep/0066.html

Tim, Ralph, and I have been working on providing such a link in the past
2 months, since the issue got raise in several contexts and a
specification was sent back to Last Call recently due to an improper
normative reference. This was discussed at the Advisory Board last week
and as soon as Ralph and I can find 2 hours to take into account the
feedback, we'll point folks to the document for wider feedback. Having
said that, it won't be a set of rules, where one can simply get a yes or
no. There is a need to have flexibility here and evaluate each request
on their own merits and the only way to get a clear yes or no is to ask
the Director during a Proposed Recommendation transition. The aim of the
document is to help folks understand the considerations that are being
evaluated when looking at a normative reference.

On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 14:21 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> I'd appreciate some official note, along with arguments as to why
> referring to DOM is verboten, but referring to equally-unstable W3C
> ED/WD documents is fine.

It's not fine to refer normatively to an ED or WD from a W3C
Recommendation. Those don't satisfy stability either (cf several APIs
that have been blocked at the Proposed Recommendation stage in the past
year or two).  See transition requirements for W3C Recommendations [1].

In case you'd like to have a longer discussion on this topic, please
move the thread to public-w3process@w3.org which, I believe, fits better
for this kind of discussion than www-style@w3.org.

Philippe

[1]
http://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=pr-tr

Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 14:20:21 UTC