This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 21062 - Reference to outdated [WINDOW]
Summary: Reference to outdated [WINDOW]
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: SVG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Document Structure (show other bugs)
Version: SVG 2.0
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: Test Suite
Assignee: Doug Schepers
QA Contact: SVG Public List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2013-02-20 17:32 UTC by Ms2ger
Modified: 2013-02-20 18:16 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description Ms2ger 2013-02-20 17:32:35 UTC 
The GetSVGDocument section still refers to <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-Window-20060407/>, which has long been replaced by the HTML spec: <http://www.whatwg.org/html>.
Comment 1 Dirk Schulze 2013-02-20 17:36:19 UTC 
(In reply to comment #0)
> The GetSVGDocument section still refers to
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-Window-20060407/>, which has long been
> replaced by the HTML spec: <http://www.whatwg.org/html>.

Is it in the HTML5 spec already? I don't think that we want to have a normative reference to WHAT WG spec.
Comment 2 Tab Atkins Jr. 2013-02-20 17:39:55 UTC 
There's no reason to be afraid of a normative WHATWG reference.
Comment 3 Dirk Schulze 2013-02-20 17:45:43 UTC 
(In reply to comment #2)
> There's no reason to be afraid of a normative WHATWG reference.

It might depend on the restrictions we have to a normative reference. The WHAT WG spec does not have any guarantee that the specifics stay consistent and might be not in sync with the publication of SVG. WD, CR and REC's stay consistent, even if the specification goes into a next level.

If HTML5 has the definition already, then we should prefer this as reference.
Comment 4 Tab Atkins Jr. 2013-02-20 18:09:51 UTC 
The W3C's restrictions on normative refs do not exclude WHATWG references.
Comment 5 Dirk Schulze 2013-02-20 18:16:07 UTC 
(In reply to comment #4)
> The W3C's restrictions on normative refs do not exclude WHATWG references.

You seem to misunderstand my point. I have nothing against a WHATWG spec reference. But the content and links should be as much as possible stay consistent for the lifetime of a level of a spec. Both is not necessarily the case for a WHATWG spec which changes daily. For the same reason, we should not reference an editors draft of the W3C either.

PS: Should is not meant to be the SHOULD according to RFC2119 :)