Re: [widgets] Proposal to publish Widget Requirements and Widget Landscape docs as Working Group Notes; deadline Sep 23
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > PLH says that ideally every spec ends as a WG Note or a Recommendation > > but in practice groups need to consider other factors. In the case of > > the Landscape doc, which was by definition (or at least by title) > > transient, so let's just drop it (and not publish it as a WG Note). > Agreed. > > So, the proposal for the Landscape doc is amended: the proposal is to > > formally stop working on the Landscape document and to move it to > > PubStatus' "Specs NO Longer Active" table: > > > > http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus#Specs_NO_Longer_Active > > > > If anyone objects to that, please reply by September 23 and understand > > that it would mean that you must do the editing work to produce a WG Note. > Will prepare it from publication. Done (pub rules checked, removed unused references, and fixed broken links). http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/pub/ Set the publication date for the 27th. Publish away :) -- Marcos Caceres
Re: [widgets] Proposal to publish Widget Requirements and Widget Landscape docs as Working Group Notes; deadline Sep 23
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > PLH says that ideally every spec ends as a WG Note or a Recommendation > but in practice groups need to consider other factors. In the case of > the Landscape doc, which was by definition (or at least by title) > transient, so let's just drop it (and not publish it as a WG Note). Agreed. > So, the proposal for the Landscape doc is amended: the proposal is to > formally stop working on the Landscape document and to move it to > PubStatus' "Specs NO Longer Active" table: > > http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus#Specs_NO_Longer_Active > > If anyone objects to that, please reply by September 23 and understand > that it would mean that you must do the editing work to produce a WG Note. Will prepare it from publication.
Re: [widgets] Proposal to publish Widget Requirements and Widget Landscape docs as Working Group Notes; deadline Sep 23
On 9/19/11 10:54 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote: On Monday, September 19, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: FYI, there is some precedence for publishing Requirements docs as Recommendations (e.g. OWL UCs and Reqs) . If we want to go that route, it would presumably mean publishing a LC, skipping CR (not applicable for this spec) and then going to PR and REC. WDYT? Too much "make work"? I think it's "make work" (though I would have argued for this a few years ago). I think we should keep /TR/ for specifications that target user agents. It might also be too controversial to try to push a requirement document to REC independently of the specifications that meet those requirements. The landscape document was just created to inform the standardisation process of what was considered best practice at the time. If it's a W3C requirement that it be published as a WG Note, then it should be published as is (i.e., I don't wanna do any work on it unless I really have to). I don't feel real strongly here (and I will check with PLH on the publishing requirements). Publishing a WG Note does make a clear statement that work on the spec has stopped. We could also update the SotD which is quite old (e.g. still points to the appformats lists). [BTW, I would be willing to help with the edits.] Ok, lets see what PLH says. Thanks for your offer of help; it's very much appreciated. PLH says that ideally every spec ends as a WG Note or a Recommendation but in practice groups need to consider other factors. In the case of the Landscape doc, which was by definition (or at least by title) transient, so let's just drop it (and not publish it as a WG Note). So, the proposal for the Landscape doc is amended: the proposal is to formally stop working on the Landscape document and to move it to PubStatus' "Specs NO Longer Active" table: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus#Specs_NO_Longer_Active If anyone objects to that, please reply by September 23 and understand that it would mean that you must do the editing work to produce a WG Note. (The proposal to publish the Requirements doc as WG Note remains unchanged.) -AB
Re: [widgets] Proposal to publish Widget Requirements and Widget Landscape docs as Working Group Notes; deadline Sep 23
On Monday, September 19, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > FYI, there is some precedence for publishing Requirements docs as > Recommendations (e.g. OWL UCs and Reqs) . If we want to go that route, > it would presumably mean publishing a LC, skipping CR (not applicable > for this spec) and then going to PR and REC. WDYT? Too much "make work"? I think it's "make work" (though I would have argued for this a few years ago). I think we should keep /TR/ for specifications that target user agents. It might also be too controversial to try to push a requirement document to REC independently of the specifications that meet those requirements. > > The landscape document was just created to inform the standardisation > > process of what was considered best practice at the time. If it's a W3C > > requirement that it be published as a WG Note, then it should be published > > as is (i.e., I don't wanna do any work on it unless I really have to). > > I don't feel real strongly here (and I will check with PLH on the > publishing requirements). Publishing a WG Note does make a clear > statement that work on the spec has stopped. We could also update the > SotD which is quite old (e.g. still points to the appformats lists). > [BTW, I would be willing to help with the edits.] Ok, lets see what PLH says. Thanks for your offer of help; it's very much appreciated.
Re: [widgets] Proposal to publish Widget Requirements and Widget Landscape docs as Working Group Notes; deadline Sep 23
Hi Marcos, On 9/16/11 10:14 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote: On Friday, 16 September 2011 at 20:04, Arthur Barstow wrote: Marcos, All, To clearly state that WebApps' work on the Widget Requirements and Widget Landscape documents has ended, I propose they be published as Working Group Notes: http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-land/ http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-reqs/ I think only the requirements should be published, because it was actually pretty useful in informing the standards development process. It's actually a pretty good document, if I do say so myself :) FYI, there is some precedence for publishing Requirements docs as Recommendations (e.g. OWL UCs and Reqs) . If we want to go that route, it would presumably mean publishing a LC, skipping CR (not applicable for this spec) and then going to PR and REC. WDYT? Too much "make work"? The landscape document was just created to inform the standardisation process of what was considered best practice at the time. If it's a W3C requirement that it be published as a WG Note, then it should be published as is (i.e., I don't wanna do any work on it unless I really have to). I don't feel real strongly here (and I will check with PLH on the publishing requirements). Publishing a WG Note does make a clear statement that work on the spec has stopped. We could also update the SotD which is quite old (e.g. still points to the appformats lists). [BTW, I would be willing to help with the edits.] -AB
Re: [widgets] Proposal to publish Widget Requirements and Widget Landscape docs as Working Group Notes; deadline Sep 23
On Friday, 16 September 2011 at 20:04, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Marcos, All, > > To clearly state that WebApps' work on the Widget Requirements and > Widget Landscape documents has ended, I propose they be published as > Working Group Notes: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-land/ > http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-reqs/ I think only the requirements should be published, because it was actually pretty useful in informing the standards development process. It's actually a pretty good document, if I do say so myself :) The landscape document was just created to inform the standardisation process of what was considered best practice at the time. If it's a W3C requirement that it be published as a WG Note, then it should be published as is (i.e., I don't wanna do any work on it unless I really have to). > If anyone has any comments or objections to publishing those docs - as > is (except for SotD updates) - as WG Notes, please reply by September 23 > at the latest. 0_o Kind regards, Marcos
