- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 14:52:08 +0000
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jonathan Rees writes: ... I think this is >> where your advice to write (non-normative) applicability statements >> comes from. > > I fundamentally disagree. It is a bad idea to think we are or should > be in the business of trying to write tie-breaking rules Sorry, "rules" is not at all what I meant - a rule would be normative, and I excluded that. I certainly have no objection to what you say. My "applicability statement" fantasy (not proposal) was of a statement of intent regarding how to approach potential overlap or conflict - as a guide for the perplexed, not containing any normative elements ("should" or "rule"). Maybe such a document would say exactly what you have just said. Maybe concurrent publication by a single WG, or normative reference of one document by another, implicitly constitutes such a statement. Other cases are covered by introductory material in actual specs, and so on. I'm just riffing from first principles; I didn't mean to suggest any particular approach to the situations at hand. I am struggling to internalize and integrate a number of interesting ideas I've heard recently and untangle some abstract concerns around agreement and responsibility. I guess I SHOULD take the research off this list until it's better baked. Jonathan
Received on Sunday, 12 June 2011 14:52:36 UTC