Re: Draft [URL] reference update to informative text

Yes, the NRP is a set of considerations.  Obviously, I wasn't in such a
meeting, and have not seen the Director issue any statement; it's his
decision.  And I agree with you that the coupling between HTML and URL is
relatively simple and well-factored.  I also agree that URL is not likely
(IANAL) a huge source of IP concerns, and that it's relatively
non-contentious.

That said - man, it sure would help me feel better about the stability and
applicability if the WHATWG had any kind of addressing of the places where
this spec (and others) fail those NRP principles - say, a stability
section, or a clear "this is how this is likely to change in the future".
Or a stable snapshot that doesn't have an derogatory lawyercat title, but
does have a clear "you probably want the living standard over here"
pointer.  Because right now, the answer in every case has been "everything
can change at any time", which is a concerning failure.

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Domenic Denicola <
domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

>  The normative reference policy is a set of considerations for the
> director. In the meeting, with the director present, they were considered.
>
>
>
> In particular, we discussed how the coupling between HTML and URL is
> simple and well-factored enough that the benefits of referencing the Living
> Standard outweighed other considerations.
>
>
>
> *From:* Chris Wilson [mailto:cwilso@google.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 8, 2014 12:13
> *To:* Domenic Denicola
> *Cc:* Yves Lafon; www-tag@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Draft [URL] reference update to informative text
>
>
>
> I refer you to the normative reference policy.  :)  I'm really not trying
> to cycle this argument over and over, but this is a major change to a
> policy and the W3C's way of working, and it should be treated as such; not
> a disagreement about one simple, relatively non-contentious reference.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Domenic Denicola <
> domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
>
>  Yes, and?
>
>
>
> *From:* Chris Wilson [mailto:cwilso@google.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 8, 2014 12:02
> *To:* Domenic Denicola
> *Cc:* Yves Lafon; www-tag@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Draft [URL] reference update to informative text
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Domenic Denicola <
> domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
>
> My understanding of the TAG's position based on our discussion at the last
> meeting is we would prefer to just reference https://url.spec.whatwg.org/.
>
>
>
> That's an unstable reference.
>
>
>