- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:54:23 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
- Cc: Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
On 18/03/15 07:09, Tantek Çelik wrote: > Regardless, we CANNOT add a MUST requirement of an aspect (i.e. > format) a feature that is defined in a spec which we are unable to > normatively reference (lack of open spec), and since there is no open > spec for .ico and .cur, we are unable to normatively reference them. > > This is based on W3C rules for normative references - and we may not > even be able to publish an updated draft if we attempt to normatively > reference something that violates W3C's referencing policy. > > It doesn't matter if you or the whole group thinks we should > normatively reference a non-open spec - W3C publishing / process will > reject it. That's correct. But we could at least add an informal note to the spec saying that cur and ico are the two interoperable formats implemented by all engines at the time of publication of the document and that all new implementations are strongly encouraged to implement them too. I am then asking Mirosoft to provide the WG with authoritative and stable URLs containing specification of cur and ico formats we could use as informative reference. If there are no such documents, create them? </Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2015 08:54:49 UTC