(Chair hat off) 24.09.2014, 18:11, "Marcos Caceres" <[email protected]>: > On September 24, 2014 at 8:43:10 AM, Anne van Kesteren ([email protected]) > wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:33 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >>> Anne - would you please confirm if your comments have been adequately >>> addressed? >> I disagree with the prioritization of creating a snapshot over >> defining (even to an approximation) what implementers actually have to >> do. I said as much on GitHub and IRC, but it seems my comments have >> been deferred nonetheless. > > Anne is, unfortunately, right. There is no point in putting anything on /TR/ > until the > W3C fixes the ability to have documents sync with what is on GH. Otherwise, we > will just find ourselves here again in a few months. The stability of the > document > doesn't have any correlation to it appearing on the /TR/ space, and hence, it > would misguided for us to push for its publication until the snapshots issue > is fixed.
Actually, I am afraid you and Anne are wrong and are obstructing the group on spurious process grounds by, respectively, failing to answer the technical question asked, and requesting that we do not do what we are chartered to do. In the absence of any clear rationale, "It might change somehow" is effectively "FUD", much as "someone might have IPR" is. So while you are technically correct that a technology and its specification can change, that is effectively irrelevant. Yandex wants to see documents progress toward Recommednation according to the W3C Process and Patent Policy. While in some cases we may prefer to read the Editor's draft (or some other version), there is a great value for us in a stabilised document, even at the "cost" that it may be partially obsolete. I'd also point you to http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WorkMode#Off-Topic_Discussion_Policy -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex [email protected] - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
