W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2012

Re: ACTION-687: Please help me remember what this one is about

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:55:10 -0400
Message-ID: <4F981E5E.6010104@arcanedomain.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>

On 4/25/2012 10:42 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> As a W3C administrative matter; there doesn't seem to be any point in
> scheduling further TAG discussion.

Seems right to me.

> I'd suggest that someone just ask the AB if they would make sure to
> deal with this issue, and if there were any architectural or technical
> concerns still, to ask us.

I >think< that might boil down to a request to me? ;-) If there are no 
objections, I will send the AB a note saying:

"During our recent F2F discussion the TAG considered (again) Mime sniffing 
in HTML. It was noted by some members that confusion in this space was 
caused (among many other reasons) by the fact that a W3C Recommendation 
[...Larry, please provide the link for me...] contained a normative 
reference to an Internet Draft [...link please...], in spite of the fact 
that IDs are valid for limited duration. In fact, the ID in question has 
now expired and is no longer suitable for reference.

Whether such references should be allowed seems to be a process question, 
and thus primarily for the AB. The TAG is not at this time offering formal 
advice as to what a good policy would be, but I was asked to informally 
alert you that this might be an area the AB would want to consider.

Thank you very much

Noah Mendelsohn
for the W3C Technical Architecture Group

Larry: would that do it for you? Other TAG members: any objections or 
better ideas?  I'll wait a few days, and if nobody suggests to the contrary 
I'll go ahead, and then mark ACTION-687 as pending.

One other question though: you say the reference was from a W3C 
Recommendation. I thought the reference was from HTML5, and thus from a 
working draft. If so, is our objection to including such references in WDs? 
I thought there was a tradition of allowing such things, with the 
understanding that the referents would have to proceed to more stable 
status before the referring drafts could go all the way to REC?

Thank you.

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 15:55:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:44 UTC