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

Re: a couple of concerns

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 18:56:18 +0000
To: Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org>, DWBP Public List <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Cc: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>, public-dwbp-comments@w3.org, Deirdre Lee <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org>, Yaso Córdova <yaso@nic.br>
Message-ID: <568D6352.8020302@w3.org>
Dear all,

As discussed with Hadley earlier today, I have sought advice on this. 
The preferred option, in terms of W3C process, is that we immediately 
publish a new version of the doc highlighting the issue. This avoids the 
procedurally tricky idea of editing a published document. To this end, I 
have created a clone of the 2015-12-17 version with the following 

1. The REST API BP now includes a note to highlight that it is unstable. 
I raised this as Issue-233.
2. I updated the change history and status of the document accordingly.

I admit there's a 3:

3. I updated the reference to the document's own URI in the section on 
URIs for versioned things.

All other text is identical to the version we published immediately 
before Christmas. It can be seen at


This is essentially an action by me as your Team Contact based on the 
advice of our COO but even so, I'd like to wait until we've had a chance 
to discuss it on Friday's call with a view to publishing the new version 
next Tuesday - and then working on correcting the text and getting that 
out in the coming couple of weeks as described by Hadley.



On 06/01/2016 13:39, Hadley Beeman wrote:
> Hi Annette
> Thank you; I appreciate your thoughtful comments here.  I'm sorry that this
> happened, and I think you're right to raise this.
> I've just discussed this with Phil, and he is looking into the implications
> for the draft we've just agreed to publish.  He'll let us know how that
> unfolds.
> To fix this:  We can try to get another draft out to address these concerns
> quickly, if you can be entirely clear what you think should be changed (and
> establish with the editors what they were intending when they put them in)
> — then we could sort this on Friday, with new text (frozen) for Monday or
> Tuesday so that next week we can vote on another version.
> Going forward: we do need to be more meticulous about:
> a) giving the entire working group at least 4 days (with final, frozen
> text) to review anything before we vote to publish it
> b) agreeing that, ideally, no changes should be made after we publish.
> (This does take some negotiation, and — unfortunately — can be part of why
> the standards process takes a while!  But it's important to make sure what
> we're publishing reflects the consensus of the entire group.)
> If you're okay with that, we'll put it on the agenda to clear up your
> concerns about the REST API best practices for Friday.  Do confirm.  And
> thanks again for bringing this up.
> Cheers,
>     Hadley
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>> Ack.
>> 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.
>> --
>> Phil Archer
>> W3C Data Activity Lead
>> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>> http://philarcher.org
>> +44 (0)7887 767755
>> @philarcher1


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead

+44 (0)7887 767755
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2016 18:56:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 6 January 2016 18:56:57 UTC