Boris Zbarsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2008-09-19 10:44 -0400: > Michael(tm) Smith wrote: > > It's intended in part to be a way to keep all our law-abiding > > citizen readers in the general public informed about what progress > > if any the group is making on the spec. > > But if the information is months out of date, is it useful? Seems to me > that it would be better to just make the editor's draft public and be done > with it.
Would that we could... Anyway, the Editor's Draft is called that because that's what it is. It's not called, say, the Working Group Draft because that's not what it is. It's a version of the spec that represents the latest change made by the editor and which may or may not have been reviewed at all by the group. In fact it's main purpose is to provide some text for the working group to actually review prior to publication. I'm not sure most people in the group would agree that they'd like the latest Editor's Draft to be published on the W3C as something representing the agreement of the group. Anyway, we can mitigate the out-of-datedeness issue somewhat by working harder to try to follow the W3C publish-a-real-WD-from-the- group-at-least-once-every-3-months "heartbeat" requirement. But that also is actually a lot easier said than done. --Mike -- Michael(tm) Smith http://people.w3.org/mike/
