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 13:47:52 -0400
Message-ID: <4F9838C8.3030203@arcanedomain.com>
To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <ij@W3.org>
Larry, are you convinced by what Thomas writes? You were the one who raised 
the concern.

Noah

On 4/25/2012 1:01 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> Noah wrote:
>
>> I thought that somewhere in the W3C process was a clause that, put informally, boils down to: "The referent of any normative reference from a W3C draft or recommendation must be at a level of stability that is, at worst, one level flakier than the referring document."
>
>> I can't offhand find where such a rule is set down,
>
> Right, that's the rule we generally stick to.
>
> (And no, I can't find the reference to that one off-hand, either.)
>
>> but Larry's comment seems to be about the general effectiveness of W3C guidelines in this area. It's also a matter of judgement, and maybe something on which we need a ruling, as to when if ever references to IETF IDs from W3C working drafts or Recs would/should be acceptable per such rules.
>
> Two observations:
>
> 1. Referencing I-Ds from Working Drafts is a necessity for any joint or coordinated work.  How else should W3C and IETF be able to have APIs and protocols developed in parallel, referencing each other?
>
> 2. I don't think anybody has disputed that the reference from a Recommendation to an I-D was a mistake.  Absent ambiguity here, I'm not sure what ruling you'r seeking.
>
> (If anybody was arguing that referencing an I-D from a Rec is a fine thing, then there might indeed be a process question here.)
>
> A different question would be how well we do at enforcing these rules, and whether there are measures to improve those.  Again, I'm not sure whether that's a process question -- it might be a tooling question best asked of those who are revising the toolset we use to produce our specifications.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 17:48:29 UTC

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