On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Wendy Seltzer <wselt...@w3.org> wrote:
> A reminder that has come up in some recent transition calls: When moving > a spec to Candidate Recommendation, we look to see that the normative > references are to documents of equivalent stability[1] -- ideally, also > CR, if they're W3C documents. So if you're moving a document forward, > it's a good idea to look periodically at the references and ping the > other working groups where those are being developed to make sure that > dependencies are moving at the pace we need. (This also helps to satisfy > the "wide review" requirements.) > A corollary to this is that "stability" should be balanced against "accuracy". That is, http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/draft-ietf-iiir-html-01.txt is pretty stable, but we ought not reference it today, as it doesn't represent what browsers are doing. What do you/the director/his delegates suggest that we do if we'd like to reference concepts that aren't yet present in W3C specifications? As a concrete example, I'm going to send a transition request for Secure Contexts shortly. It uses the "creation URL" concept which was recently added to WHATWG's HTML ( https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/webappapis.html#creation-url). That concept is not present in the W3C's HTML (nor is it clear to me how to get it added :) ). How do you suggest that we proceed? +public-webapps, as I believe specs like Service Worker have similar problems (and, in this case, the exact same problem). -mike