- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:35:28 -0800
- To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- CC: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Thanks for the background; I keep on coming up with places where the almost decade-old QA documents have really hashed out issues that we're reinventing. Given there's already a W3C recommendation covering this particular use case, I'd vote for updating and republishing the QA framework rather than trying to issue a new finding in this area. http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice The discussion so far has been useful and perhaps we can capture it so far in. http://www.w3.org/wiki/NormativeReferences I like Jonathan's analysis as well. -----Original Message----- From: Karl Dubost [mailto:karld@opera.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 10:51 AM To: Larry Masinter Cc: Robin Berjon; C. M. Sperberg-McQueen; www-tag@w3.org Subject: Re: ACTION-350: Best practice for referring to specifications which may update Le 18 janv. 2012 à 08:54, Larry Masinter a écrit : > Questions: > What do editors of spec A write, what should reviewers of spec A > assume, what should implementors of spec A do, when the editors of > spec B issue B', an updated spec. Some input http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice -- Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/ Developer Relations, Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:37:33 UTC