W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-comments@w3.org > January 2016

Re: a couple of concerns

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 11:12:47 +0000
To: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>, public-dwbp-comments@w3.org, Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org>, Deirdre Lee <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org>, Yaso Córdova <yaso@nic.br>
Message-ID: <568BA52F.3080301@w3.org>
Thanks for this Annette, please see inline below.

On 05/01/2016 06:35, Annette Greiner wrote:
> Hi all,
> I’d like to raise a couple of issues that have been bothering me of late in our process for developing the DWBP best practices doc. The most recent version contained some last-minute changes that I disagree with, which points at two different issues.
> First, we should not be making editorial changes that change the sense of the text after a vote to publish.

Definitely true.

  While I’m sure that the editors have never intended to do that, the 
doc has been undergoing a flurry of post-vote changes each time, and 
these have sometimes affected the meaning. I am concerned about the 
pattern of delays in getting the document into a stable state and the 
lack of stability at the time of voting and immediately thereafter. I 
think we need to be voting on a document that is as we expect to publish 
it, including all changes. This would require a publication schedule 
with dates on which feedback is due and by which changes must be made, 
and those dates should be before the date on which we vote to publish.

Correct, of course. I'm explicitly copying the (active) chairs who will, 
I am sure, respond to this.

> Second, the most recent changes that prompted this concern are the changes to the text regarding the best practice to use REST APIs. I took some pains to include the two main approaches to using REST in my submission for that BP, and while I must admit that my writing was not successful in making the distinction clear, since it wasn’t clear enough to the editor to preserve it, I was surprised to see how far from my intent the published text appeared. I would be happy to give another try at teasing apart the two approaches. I do not feel that the current BP reflects what most web developers would consider best practices for developing with REST and REST-inspired architectures.


My suggestion is that a new version of the doc is prepared as soon as 
possible and, following suitable WG review, published.

Thanks for bringing this up, Annette, I'm sorry it was necessary.



Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead

+44 (0)7887 767755
Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2016 11:13:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 5 January 2016 11:13:10 UTC