On 2 Sep 2007, at 19:52, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
i only just discovered the second version during the IRC aftermatn of the HTML WG teleconference -- my question to the chairs, and editors is, which draft should be the basis of WF2 review and the basis of the joint task force's work? if the later version, could it be pushed to TR space? it took a direct inquiry for me to locate the CVS version, and if that is to be considered WF2's baseline, it desperately needs a more citeable URI, but more importantly, if it was pushed to CVS space, why was it not subsequently used to update the draft at its default location (in TR space) -- was this simply an oversight, or is there someone who could shed more light on this dichotomy?
/TR/ are technical reports, such as notes, working drafts, and recommendations (see the process document for further details). Not every editor's draft is a working draft. Simply, the latest WF2 draft hasn't been put forward as a WD, and therefore isn't a technical report. As far as the argument regarding citable URIs, the same could be applied for HTML 5 as a whole (which is currently only in W3C CVS/ WHATWG SVN).
Also:
In order to keep [EMAIL PROTECTED] focussed on the technical work of this group, I encourage everyone to take process issues up directly with the involved people and/or the chairs.
-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/0669.html - Geoffrey Sneddon
