On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:07:40 +0100, Ms2ger <ms2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/03/2012 01:44 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
Just a reminder: this group is a forum for discussion of technical
specifications, and follows the existing W3C process. Discussion of what
process *should* be is off topic here.
I find it unfortunate that you try to cut off discussions relevant to
technical issues with our specifications by calling them "process"
discussions.
And we the chairs find it unfortunate that you continue to bombard the
working group with discussions of and objections based on process, simply
because there are technical considerations to what the process of this
organisation should be.
This is a formal warning. The discussion is off topic, so please desist.
From my understanding reasons for the practice include the following:
- W3C aims to provide stable specifications that can be used as
references which won't change. This is a general underpinning of its
policy for specifications published as "TR" documents. Making a
normative reference to an unstable document obviously defeats this
purpose.
The argument that "TR" documents are in some way more "stable" than
other documents is simply fallacious. This has been discussed at length
here and in other venues;
By stable, we mean "are formally published as a stable reference". The
technical issues this brings up, as I said in this thread, are known.
I won't go into it again.
Thank you. In this working group, please apply the same approach to other
discussions of W3C process.
Furthermore, I should point out that referencing the TR draft of WebIDL
would (if anybody tried to implement the TR spec and its TR references;
nobody does, of course) lead to a specification that is not
implementable. The WebIDL used in XHR is not valid according to the 19
April 2012 CR of WebIDL.
[...]
[chaals' example of currently unwritten requirements]
I find this comparison, in particular, to be unhelpful and rather rude.
I'm sorry. If you'd like to discuss this further, in an appropriate forum,
I will endeavour to find a comparison more to your taste. Otherwise,
please accept my apologies.
Nobody is suggesting using expletives in specifications. The only
parallel I can imagine with the current situation is that some people
seem offended by the existence of the WHATWG, and for some reason want
to make sure no W3C publication ever mentions it.
This is a misrepresentation of the facts, unless you have special
knowledge of some person's individual motivation. In particular, both the
chairs and many others have repeatedly expressed that credit should be
given where credit is due, and in particular that appropriate references
to WHAT-WG documents on the same topic are the sort of thing that should
be in the spec, because that kind of reference is expected of "socially
competent adults". This is a currently accepted consensus of the group,
and I do not recall having seen any dissent.
It is also an extension of the discussion, and an inappropriate ascription
of motives to others.
The question here is whether WHAT-WG documents are suitable as *normative
references for W3C specifications*.
I had hoped we had been able to come to a somewhat more mature
relationship between this WG and the WHATWG after the recent
discussions about attribution, but changes like this make me
lose confidence in the goals of the W3C Team and the chairs of
this WG on this matter.
That is unfortunate.
I maintain my technical objections to the publication.
The chairs maintain that your objection is not technical.
In any event, we draw your attention to the sentence
[[[
Consensus is not a prerequisite for approval to publish; the Working Group
MAY request publication of a Working Draft even if it is unstable and does
not meet all Working Group requirements.
]]] - http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#first-wd
in section 7.4.1 of the process document. We note your objection, and
resolve to publish the Working Draft.
for the chairs
Chaals
--
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
cha...@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
