[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Updated: (CAMP-86) Nature of YAML makes its suitability as a normative reference problematic
[ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-86?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Adrian Otto updated CAMP-86: ---------------------------- Proposal: Copy YAML 1.1 2005-10-18 as as a part of the CAMP work product, so it can be accessed through a stable reference that will not change. (was: Copy YAML 1.1 2008-01-18 as as a part of the CAMP work product, so it can be accessed through a stable reference that will not change.) > Nature of YAML makes its suitability as a normative reference problematic > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CAMP-86 > URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-86 > Project: OASIS Cloud Application Management for Platforms (CAMP) TC > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Public Review > Reporter: Gilbert Pilz > Priority: Critical > > Patrick Durusau raises some issues about the nature of YAML and its suitability as a normative reference here: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/camp-comment/201309/msg00010.html > I noticed the *normative* reference to YAML under 1.8 Normative > References. > Not being familiar with it, I followed the link. > - From "Status of this Document" I read: > ***** > This specification is a draft reflecting consensus reached by members > of the yaml-core mailing list. Any questions regarding this draft > should be raised on this list. We expect all further changes to be > strictly limited to wording corrections and fixing production bugs. > ***** > So the YAML normative reference is to a draft dated 2005-01-18, that > reflects a "consensus" of members of a mailing list. > Is that a fair characterization? > There is no formal organization charged with its maintenance and no > known process other than email "consensus" as far as any changes? > As I said in a post earlier today: > ********** > First, draft work should never be used in normative references at all. > Under any circumstances. As the TC Process notes (Section 1, w:): > ***** > "Normative Reference" means a reference in a Standards Track Work > Product to an external document or resource with which the implementer > must comply, in order to comply with a Normative Portion of the Work > Product. > ***** > Note the "must comply" language. > Drafts by their very nature change and reliance on a draft invites a > lack of interoperability. > ********** > - From examining the draft it is clear that conformance to YAML, a > mailing list consensus draft, is critical for use of this standard. > The only solution that comes to mind, given that YAML states it can be > copied if not modified, would be to include a copy of YAML 1.1 as an > appendix and cite that appendix as your normative reference. > That fixes the text of YAML 1.1 to be what is included in the appendix > and provides implementers with a stable target for their implementations. > If YAML has not been modifed since its "final draft" date of > 2005-01-18, it should be stable enough to not burden the TC with too > many maintenance duties. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]