This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
The specification references many unstable drafts, some of them are editor's drafts at best that are always on the move. The specification should reference stable documents when they exist and update those references along the way.
See also http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12930
Why is this a good use of our time?
Unless you can point me to a different way for handling this, I don't know how else to approach it.
The different way would be to handle it as we handle it now. Other than a few people from ye old guard, nobody complained.
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Did Not Understand Request Change Description: no spec change Rationale: What do you mean by "unstable"?
(In reply to comment #4) > The different way would be to handle it as we handle it now. Other than a few > people from ye old guard, nobody complained. The current way turns the specification into a never stable document. HTML5 should have a clear definition, not a vague sense of one. As recently as last week, I've got comments that HTML5 shouldn't be turned into an unstable technology. So, I consider my feedback as a good use of my time at least, especially if it leads to resolve that question once and for all.
(In reply to comment #5) > EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are > satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If > you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please > reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML > Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest > title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue > yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: > http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html > > Status: Did Not Understand Request > Change Description: no spec change > Rationale: What do you mean by "unstable"? I'm surprised that I need to spell this out, especially given the recent exchange on the Web Performance mailing list and the link to bug 12930. Linking to an ever changing editor's draft DOES NOT give a stable reference. There is no guarantee of stability on all of the references to dev.w3.org for example.
You mean the discussions on the web-perf list that you never replied to? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2011Apr/0013.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2011Jul/0090.html What do you mean by "stable"?
mass-move component to LC1
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Did Not Understand Request Change Description: no spec change Rationale: No new information since comment 5.
I think "did not understand request" isn't entirely accurate. The request sounds pretty clear to me.