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

On 2012-04-25, at 17:55 +0200, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.

One of the widget specs.

> 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.

Objection.

Referencing a document that is explicitly not intended to be referenced strikes me as a relatively obvious spec bug that, in this specific case, escaped review.  That's unfortunate.  I don't think I've heard anybody suggest that I-Ds are useful normative references for anything.

Hence, I don't understand how this gets even close to the level of a process question that needs to be put in front of the AB.



> 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.
> 
> Noah
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 16:29:50 UTC