Hi Karl,
Karl Dubost wrote:
Le 15 févr. 2011 à 07:27, Nathan a écrit :
It would be great to see the two approaches balanced such that announcements are made
like "HTML has just been updated, features a,b have been added, bugs h,j,k have been
fixed and z has been deprecated".
What would be the criteria for these features? There are many possible ways of
I simply couldn't say, a balance between evolution and interoperability
would need to be struck, taking in to account the factors you've
mentioned below (and anything missed) - but I'm very glad to see you've
started outlining the questions that need to be addressed to make this
happen :) One could see this is standardizing standardization, and who
better to do it than a group of standardization experts who understand
the space well!
* Interoperability tables?
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Implementations_in_Web_browsers
http://caniuse.com/
an important factor, if a feature is deployed and working on XX% of
targets and is being used, then I'd suggest that feature would certainly
be a candidate for being pushed to the rec.
* Under Patent Policy?
can't say, not my domain at all!
# Small feature specifications
(extracted from the OpenWeb "wiki" specification which is HTML living standard.)
* Benefits:
- Easier, quick to publish
- can be put in shape (not the content) by someone else
- small target for test suites
- small target for interoperability reports
- easier to publish tutorials
* Drawbacks:
- reference and dependencies hells.
- consistency: easier to publish comes with we need to be
quicker to fix an error.
- more legacy documents around after a few years/months
- IANAL. Patent policy not designed?, set up
for this kind of things.
- W3C staff work more difficult (publishing, announcements)
in a limited resources environment. (Can be fixed)
Good starting outline! hope to see this positive forward thinking
continue, kudos.
Best,
Nathan
