- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:11:45 +0200
- To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <ij@W3.org>
On Apr 25, 2012, at 19:01 , Thomas Roessler wrote: > 2. I don't think anybody has disputed that the reference from a Recommendation to an I-D was a mistake. Absent ambiguity here, I'm not sure what ruling you'r seeking. > > (If anybody was arguing that referencing an I-D from a Rec is a fine thing, then there might indeed be a process question here.) I wasn't on the Director's Call for that particular specification's transition, but if the topic was brought up at all (and not simply missed during review) I would suspect that this specific case may be defensible. The I-D in question is the best existing documentation for a process that is already implemented pretty much across the board anyway. Documentation of the de facto, however unstable, could justifiably have been considered better than nothing at all. Had I been the editor of the spec or chair of the group, I think that's the case I would have made. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 19:12:10 UTC