ACTION-350: Revise http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html based on feedback on www-tag and the feedback from TAG f2f 2009-12-09 discussion

Revise http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html based on feedback on www-tag and the feedback from TAG f2f 2009-12-09 discussion

State:
closed
Person:
Larry Masinter
Due on:
November 29, 2011
Created on:
December 9, 2009
Associated Product:
HTML 5 review
Related emails:
  1. Re: New resource: Normative References to W3C Standards (from therandshow@gmail.com on 2013-04-20)
  2. RE: New resource: Normative References to W3C Standards (from masinter@adobe.com on 2013-04-20)
  3. Late Minutes from January 19 (from dan@bluevia.com on 2012-02-09)
  4. Draft minutes for the TAG teleconference of 2 February 2012 (from jeni@jenitennison.com on 2012-02-08)
  5. TAG call may NOT be canceled (was: Re: TAG call of 2 February 2012 MAY be canceled) (from nrm@arcanedomain.com on 2012-02-01)
  6. Re: TAG call of 2 February 2012 MAY be canceled (from nrm@arcanedomain.com on 2012-02-01)
  7. Re: Fw: CfC: Close ISSUE-177: ietf-id-wip by Amicable Resolution (ACTION-350) (from nrm@arcanedomain.com on 2012-01-27)
  8. RE: Fw: CfC: Close ISSUE-177: ietf-id-wip by Amicable Resolution (ACTION-350) (from masinter@adobe.com on 2012-01-26)
  9. Re: ACTION-350: Best practice for referring to specifications which may update (from ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) on 2012-01-19)
  10. RE: ACTION-350: Best practice for referring to specifications which may update (from masinter@adobe.com on 2012-01-18)
  11. Re: ACTION-350: Best practice for referring to specifications which may update (from nrm@arcanedomain.com on 2012-01-18)
  12. Re: ACTION-350: Best practice for referring to specifications which may update (from karld@opera.com on 2012-01-18)
  13. Re: ACTION-350: Best practice for referring to specifications which may update (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2012-01-18)
  14. Re: ACTION-350: Best practice for referring to specifications which may update (from ndw@nwalsh.com on 2012-01-18)
  15. Re: ACTION-350: Best practice for referring to specifications which may update (from cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com on 2012-01-18)
  16. Re: ACTION-350: Best practice for referring to specifications which may update (from robin@berjon.com on 2012-01-18)
  17. Re: ACTION-350: Best practice for referring to specifications which may update (from rees@mumble.net on 2012-01-18)
  18. RE: ACTION-350: Best practice for referring to specifications which may update (from masinter@adobe.com on 2012-01-18)
  19. Re: ACTION-350: Best practice for referring to specifications which may update (from robin@berjon.com on 2012-01-18)
  20. RE: ACTION-350: Best practice for referring to specifications which may update (from masinter@adobe.com on 2012-01-17)
  21. Re: ACTION-350: Best practice for referring to specifications which may update (from cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com on 2012-01-17)
  22. ACTION-350: Best practice for referring to specifications which may update (from noah@arcanedomain.com on 2012-01-17)
  23. Re: Mime/Web next steps (from nrm@arcanedomain.com on 2012-01-17)
  24. Re: Roadmap on extensibility, registries, MIME (and MIME and the web Product Page) (from nrm@arcanedomain.com on 2011-12-13)
  25. Roadmap on extensibility, registries, MIME (and MIME and the web Product Page) (from masinter@adobe.com on 2011-12-13)
  26. Minutes for September 29 Telecon (from Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com on 2011-10-04)
  27. draft minutes from 7/21 (from masinter@adobe.com on 2011-07-22)
  28. Draft minutes for TAG telcon 2011-07-14 (from ylafon@w3.org on 2011-07-20)
  29. Preparation for this week's TAG teleconference: F2F Agenda Preparation (from nrm@arcanedomain.com on 2010-05-19)
  30. Tag Members: Please review your open actions ASAP as input to F2F agenda (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2010-03-10)
  31. Re: suggestions for next week's agenda as a result of today's meeting (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2010-02-04)
  32. suggestions for next week's agenda as a result of today's meeting (from connolly@w3.org on 2010-02-04)

Related notes:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html

Henry S. Thompson, 16 Dec 2009, 12:16:38

"safe to assume no progress" -- ht Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:32:38 +0000

Dan Connolly, 9 Feb 2010, 22:20:32

Per discussion of 29 Sept 2011, assigning to Larry Masinter (was Henry Thompson). Note that there is an extensive email trail following from email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html

See also XML schema work on future proofing references.

Noah Mendelsohn, 29 Sep 2011, 18:14:49

My conclusion is that the advice in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0075.html is too complex and ultimately wrong.

If spec A references spec B normatively -- i.e., the conformance rules of A depend on following the the conformance rules of B, then

1) the reference in a spec being considered and reviewed should include a specific version. This is so multiple parties reviewing spec A and discussing whether it should progress can make sure that if they think they agree, they're agreeing about the same thing.

2) It is natural to want to upgrade when there is a newer edition of B. But implementations which wish to conform to an specific edition of A but a later edition/version of B should be explicit about which editions they're claiming conformance with.

Weasel words in the spec itself aren't helpful.

An alternative would be, at the time A is being devleloped, to explicitly leave the reference unbounded (i.e., point out that B is evolving simultaneously).

However, specifications that reach CR should resolve these as much as possible, and specs that reach REC should not have any hidden "upgrade" paths via referenced specs.

references that are indirect (e.g., through reference to registered parameters such MIME types.

I'm willing to work on this direction with someone else.

Larry Masinter, 7 Jan 2012, 17:13:07

The chair (Noah) noticed the proposed resolution from Larry above, and posted the text on www-tag for discussion:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jan/0043.html

There has been a substantial discussion on the resulting thread.

Noah Mendelsohn, 24 Jan 2012, 22:07:40

http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice looked good enough.
ACTION-669 is scheduling followup from Henry

Larry Masinter, 2 Feb 2012, 19:07:46

There's also IETF's

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4897 "Handling Normative References to Standards-Track Documents"
and

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3967 "Clarifying when Standards Track Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower Level"

Note that IETF also has an exception to its rules:

IETF procedures generally require that a standards track RFC may not have a normative reference to another standards track document at a lower maturity level or to a non standards track specification (other than specifications from other standards bodies).

Where W3C is considered one of the "other standards bodies", so IETF is presumably assuming that W3C has some policy here.

Larry Masinter, 3 Feb 2012, 20:21:54

Display change log.


Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Peter Linss <w3c@linss.com>, Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>, Chairs, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: index.php,v 1.325 2014-09-10 21:42:02 ted Exp $