- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:39:27 -0800
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jan 29, 2009, at 4:13 PM, Robin Berjon wrote: > > Some of us have a different experience with that. But to avoid > having to come up with metrics about whether what type of document > gets what kind of review I'd rather we simply reached agreement on > whether one is more harmful than the other. If you think EDs and WDs > get the same level of review, then surely it doesn't matter to you > whichever of those two it gets released as? :) I think there are differences between ED and WD other than level of review the document receives as a result. For one, a REC-track WD triggers patent review. For another, a REC-track WD states an intention to proceed along the REC track, or at least seriously consider doing so. The second of these differences is what I am not comfortable with. If the draft is modified to clearly indicate that its REC track status is undecided, then I will have no objection to publishing it. That can be done in a number of ways - one would be to remove normative conformance claims. Another would be a suitable disclaimer in the introduction, depending on wording. Possibly both of these changes could be made. I would also like the group to agree that we need to come to resolution on these issues (normativity of this document; how the spec should be factored) before proceeding to Last Call, because by definition we can't go to Last Call with a non-REC track document. Regards, Maciej
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 01:40:14 UTC