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

RE: ACTION-350: Best practice for referring to specifications which may update

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>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0612519ABF@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
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.


The discussion so far has been useful and perhaps we can capture it so far in.


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

Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations, Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:37:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:42 UTC