On 9 Aug 2012, at 12:52, Arthur Barstow <art.bars...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Chaals, Marcos, > > Based on this discussion, I concluded this CfC has failed to show we have > consensus. As such, after you two have agreed on a version of the spec that > satisfies all of Chaals' concerns, my recommendation is we start a new CfC. Sure, go for it. Charles just needs to send me the updated refs and I need to update the SoTD. No biggy. We should have that by end of next week I would guess. Nothing is really a blocker there. > > -Thanks, AB > > On 7/26/12 9:52 AM, ext Chaals McCathieNevile wrote: >> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:17:42 +0200, Marcos Caceres <w...@marcosc.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, 25 July 2012 at 19:02, Chaals McCathieNevile wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:26:44 +0200, Arthur Barstow <art.bars...@nokia.com >>>> (mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com)> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Marcos would like to publish a "Proposed Edited Recommendation" [PER] > >>>> > of the Widget Packaging and XML Configuration spec [REC] to >>>> > incorporate the spec's errata and this is a Call for Consensus to do >>>> > so. >>>> >>>> Currently I object. I would support the publication if: >>>> >>>> 1. It restored the pointer to an external errata document (Marcos is >>>> clever, but there may still be errata) and >>> >>> Not sure what you mean here (and not just about being clever!:) )? There is >>> a pointer to errata… >>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/errata.html >>> It's right at the top of the document? What am I missing? >> >> The new version says that it incorporates the errata there, but removes the >> statement that any further errata might be found at the same place. I >> suggest reinstating the text that was taken out, since there may be a need >> for errata on this document (personally I would prefer to see a new version, >> allowing for example internationalisation of more elements) >> >>>> 2. It restored the status of the document to cover patent policy and where >>>> to send feedback and >>> >>> Ah, sorry… SoTD was from the editor's draft. I need to find a boilerplate >>> for a PER. I'm going to copy the one from XML 5th Ed., but it's a bit of >>> work so I'll do it RSN. >> >> OK, please do. >> >>>> 3. It fixes the normative references to include authors and point to >>>> stable versions. >>> >>> I will only link to "stable" versions for normative references - >>> informative references don't matter. >> >> I can live with that. However I note that it is useful to know what version >> of something that you used as an informative reference was the one you >> actually read. HTML5 is different from what it was when P&C was published. >> For most cases it doesn't matter (it is useful to have a link to the latest >> and greatest version with all the brilliant ideas the editor had after a >> saturday-night binge included), but for careful use of the documents it can >> actually make a material difference. >> >>> Re editors: can't find anything in the process document that requires them >>> to be added. >> >> 1. It is a generally accepted convention that assists in recognising a >> reference, particularly from a printed version (yes, people still print >> specifications, often. There are sound reasons why this is likely to >> continue for some years). >> 2. Many of these publications are essentially volunteer work. The efforts of >> the editors (or the money of their employers that supports them taking on >> the work) are often motivated in part by the fact that their name is cited >> by convention. I don't see the use case for breaking this convention, and >> the small benefit that it provides to those who edit specifications. >> >>> Of course, you are more than invited to add them yourself to the >>> spec if you really want. >> >> Sure, I can do that. >> >>> They were in the REC, so you can copy/paste them from there (or email me >>> the markup and I'll paste them in for you). However, I see no use case for >>> including them given that there is a hyperlink to their spec (which already >>> lists them). >> >> Cheers >> >> Chaals >> > >
