On 9/5/11 12:11 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi Julian,
On Monday, 5 September 2011 at 20:54, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-09-05 16:13, Marcos Caceres wrote:
...
Most don't, in my experience. Specially those from other consortia. They love
cling the dated specs and then pretend they are somehow more stable then the
Editor's Draft. It's simply nonsense, but the W3C Process document seems to
codify this.
bleeding edge quite often. It's a game of "who can have the latest and greatest
first and the best".
Not always so. Other industries believe that having a stable reference point
will cut down their interop issues (specially for environments where it's
difficult to update software). I know, how ridiculous and illogical is that?!
...
Well, dated and immutable specs *indeed* are more stable. If you need
"stability" as in "what it says today it will say tomorrow as well" then
dated snapshots are the right thing to use.
It's like slapping a 1.0 on a piece of software. It says nothing about its stability:
just that someone slapped "1.0" on it. There are only a few milestones that
matter in the spec process: FPWD, LC, and PR - but links to those IRP-relevant snapshots
could be hidden away where only the lawyers, or really interested parties, could find
them.
For what it's worth, attorneys have been patching long before computers
were introduced. Many practices receive continuous updates of actual
pieces of paper which are carefully pasted into the reference library.
Lets get a public version repository on the official w3c website. They
pulled off incorporating bugzilla, surely they can pull off
incorporating git. It's quite easy.
-Charles
