On 9 Aug 2012, at 13:10, "Chaals McCathieNevile" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:52:26 +0200, Arthur Barstow <[email protected]> > 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. > > Works for me. Marcos, should I just send you a snippet for references? Yep. Would appreciate that. > > cheers > >> -Thanks, AB >> >> On 7/26/12 9:52 AM, ext Chaals McCathieNevile wrote: >>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:17:42 +0200, Marcos Caceres <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wednesday, 25 July 2012 at 19:02, Chaals McCathieNevile wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:26:44 +0200, Arthur Barstow <[email protected] >>>>> (mailto:[email protected])> >>>>> 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 >>> >> >> > > > -- > Chaals - standards declaimer
