On 11/01/2007, at 10:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Regarding (2): You say: "Do you have a pointer?" Are you asking
for a
pointer to Dean's email (if so, it's earlier in the same thread),
or are
you asking for a pointer to the fact that it is inappropriate to
include a normative reference to specs that change at the whim of
the authors? If the latter, sorry, I don't have a pointer, but I
expect somewhere in the
standards world somehow has written up something to this effect.
It's just common sense and accepted practice. Without this, the
standards world would have chaos.
I'm not convinced.
I'm not sure convincing you of this makes much difference. The reason
for the request is what Jon mentions below: that HTML5 doesn't have a
formal process or patent policy (amongst other things). For those
simple reasons, it is inappropriate and potentially dangerous to
normatively reference the specification.
If HTML5 was published by a recognised standards body with a clear
royalty-free licensing arrangement then it would be acceptable to
reference it.
Dean
I can't believe this notion would even be challenged. Instead
of you asking me to provide a pointer to show that this is defined
policy, I ask you to find an approved Recommendation at W3C that
makes a normative reference to a spec that is maintained by an
organization without a formal process or patent policy and what
openly says its specs are subject to
change.
This is not a recommendation and won't be for the foreseeable future.
