Re: PSA: publishing new WD of URL spec

On September 11, 2014 at 11:56:36 AM, Robin Berjon (robin@w3.org) wrote:
> Hi Marcos,
>  
> On 11/09/2014 17:19 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > Only once I have clear answers to the following (and see actual proof).
> > I know you already addressed some of this in your previous email to
> > Dominic.
>  
> I will address your points below, but I will repeat what I told Domenic:
> I don't think progress can be made by talking about stuff in the
> abstract. I believe in iterated progress. To put it differently, I think
> this should be a living commitment to a better relationship and not some
> finalised thing before any action is taken.
>  
> Based on that I would like to get, and I think it is quite reasonable,
> agreement that we can go ahead and publish something better than what
> there was before (surely better than what *is* there) and iterate on
> that (as fast as possible) to get it all good.
>  
> Makes sense?

Yes. Let's iterate - and like you said, no talk. Put it on on GH and let's have a look . 

> > 1. How will the spec be kept up to date? i.e., what technical means will
> > be put in place by the w3c to assure that the latest is always on TR.
>  
> As announced on spec-prod and discussed with CSS recently, Philippe has
> been working on an automated publisher. My understanding is that he
> hopes to have a prototype by TPAC, and to ship in early 2015 (likely
> with some guinea pigs having earlier access).

This is strict prerequisite to me lifting the objection. 

Note however, that Anne may still object irrespective of all this. Note also that Hixie pretty much said the same thing.  

> Please provide input to that project (in its own thread).
>  
> > 2. How will the W3C determine when a spec is ready for LC/CR?
>  
> Is there any reason to use anything other than tests + implementations?

See Boris' emails about WebPerf. 

I'm also worried about arbitrary random cut off dates, ala "Plan 2014". Such things deeply undermine and circumvent the whole point of the W3C process. 

> > 3. How will the W3C cope with changes occurring to the living document
> > after CR? (See Boris' emails)
>  
> I have been advocating a software model for specs for so long that
> you're probably tired of hearing it; but I think we can apply the
> release/development branching here.

I hope so, but not if we need to go through years long process of FPWD, WD, LC/CR, bla bla bla of a V2. while a stale V1 "REC" version sits on TR.   

> > 4. Will the W3C prevent search engines from finding the copy/pasted
> > document? Particularly any static snapshots.
>  
> Why would you restrict that to imported snapshots?
>  
> We're looking at blanket-preventing that for dated TR; anyone can add
> robots noindex to TR drafts. I'm certainly happy to do that for
> URL, DOM, and likely a bunch of others when they next get published.

This would be greatly helpful. 

> > 5. What indicators (e.g., the big red box) will be put into the spec to
> > indicate that the WHATWG version is the canonical version?
>  
> Do you want something better than the big red box?

I don't know yet - I need to see the big red box that would accompany the spec.   

> > 6. Out of respect for both the Editor and the WHATWG as a standards
> > consortium, how will the W3C attribute authorship of the documents and
> > well as show that the document originates from the WHATWG?
>  
> So what's been done for DOM and URL has been to just list those editors.
> I'd be happy to remove the snapshotting editors but I think that's not
> possible *yet* if the original authors aren't on the WG.
>  
> Apart from that, it should be included in the SotD and in the big red box.
>  
> So?

For picture, the RICG requested that the RICG's logo be included. See right side of:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-html-picture-element-20130226/

 It would be nice if the WHATWG logo was also included?

Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 16:19:28 UTC