On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:02:52 +0100, Jon Ferraiolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
1) The XBL spec's references section needs to distinguish between
normative and informative references.
It does.
2) Normative references represent an indirect inclusion of a different
specification. In most cases, it is not appropriate for W3C
specifications to normatively reference specifications that get changed
at the whim of the authors and/or which do not have an associated patent
policy. (I think
that's the thrust of Dean's email.)
Do you have a pointer?
3) It might be OK to reference the HTML5 spec as published by the WhatWG
as an *informative* reference (particularly as a temporary editing
solution), but it would be better if the features from the WhatWG's
HTML5 spec were
submitted to the W3C, discussed in appropriate W3C working groups for
possible inclusion in W3C specs, and then have the XBL spec reference the
relevant W3C specs informatively (or normatively if a required feature in
XBL is defined within the other W3C spec).
As far as I can tell this is just your opinion. I agree, and I expect it
will happen in due course, but I don't see why the reference would have to
removed for now because of this.
4) If there is a need to recognize and congratulate the WhatWG for its
HTML5 work somehow, then it makes sense to do this recognition within an
acknowledgements section rather than the main body of the spec or the
normative part of references section.
That's not what the reference is for.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
