[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: W3C press release: comments on standard-setting
- From: David Brownell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Ann Navarro <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 20:22:44 -0700
> Recommendation has always been the end of the line (those who think we
> should give up the ghost and just use "standard" can now fight with those
> who are appalled at the W3C as a body deeming anything standard).
I'd think "end of the line" would be "obsolete, don't use in new software".
So I'll disagree about that point ... :)
Anyway, it's clear there are errata-tracking and other spec upkeep processes
that happen after REC, even if W3C doesn't emphasize them ... I think a "real
standard" (vs W3C REC) will normally have had those later processes applied.
> The Candidate Recommendation was supposed to be "we think it's cooked, go
> out and tell us if we're wrong", but the vague manner in which CR was and
> still is defined has turned it into a "last, last call" instead of a
> serious or lengthy implementation and kick-the-tires phase.
Some of us think that the W3C processes change too often to rely on
for any real standards work. That "implement-and-kick-tires phase" is
a pretty new concept for W3C, and as you pointed out it's not being
I think a more consistent "implement and abuse" experimental phase would
be a good general policy. In fact, I think many folk here would likely agree
that for some specs, that process doesn't really start until REC ... which is
another reason the "post-REC" part of the W3C spec lifecycle may be worth
some additional (scientific :) scrutiny.
Some folk have suggested that the natural completion of the W3C process
would be like a butterfly breaking its chrysalis ... to fly as a real standard,
with full emphasis on conformance and interop between implementations.
(And maybe hosted by some accredited standards body!)