On 12/6/2010 1:08 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Since Hixie is active on HTML, perhaps someone else is willing to pick
one of these LCs and to review the issues, bugs, diffs, etc. and propose
the next step . Any volunteers?
I am responding to feedback on these specs, just not on the schedule I
described earlier this year. (For instance, I just committed a change to
Web Storage.) My lack of urgency on getting things to CR stems primarily
from my disillusionment with the entire process; Web specs should just be
continuously maintained, having snapshots on the TR/ page seems to have
only one positive side-effect, and that's the effect on the patent policy.
Other than that it just provides a distraction that implementors and
authors can end up referencing instead of the more up-to-date and
continually maintained draft.
The drafts are actively maintained, and feedback is tracked and addressed.
It's just not done with the goal of reaching the TR/ page, but rather with
the goal of fostering interoperable implementations.
Static section numbers, and patent policy are quite important to the
lawyer crowd.
I agree, it's just one positive side-effect, but it's a big one.
