W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > October 2009

Re: Discussion of "incompatibilities" at the F2F

From: John Morris <jmorris@cdt.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:07:27 -0400
Message-Id: <A8B75341-5816-4AB5-9737-53617CF6079E@cdt.org>
To: public-geolocation@w3.org
Lars Erik,

I have no problem whatsoever discussing the incompatibilities -- it  
makes complete sense to do so -- indeed, as you note, it is vital to  
resolve any incompatibilities.  I simply would prefer to know what  
incompatibilities have been identified that we will be discussing.

If we were all going to get together for 2.5 hours and ask "does  
anyone know of any incompatibilities," that would be fine (albeit  
inefficient).  But if members of this group ALREADY know of some (as  
has been plainly stated on the members-only mailing list), then it  
would be helpful if details of the incompatibilities could be posted  
to the public mailing list before the meeting.

If ten people are going to be in the room, and five of them already  
know about the incompatibilities to be discussed, it is both courteous  
and efficient for the clueless five (including myself) to have a  
chance to get up to speed before the meeting.  Otherwise, we might  
spend more of the 2.5 hours explaining the incompatibilities  than  
solving them.  And critically, if something has never been posted to  
the public list, this WG should not be making any decisions at the F2F  
about the matter -- that prevents any chance of getting input from  
list members who are unable to be at the F2F.

As for the "historical pattern," I refer you to my last call comments,  
which I appreciate that you have already -- on this point -- rejected.

John

On Oct 30, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Lars Erik Bolstad wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Given that the PR transition criteria include the demonstration of  
> at least two interoperable implementations of the specification, it  
> is important that we spend some time at the f2f discussing  
> implementation issues, also with the goal of producing/collecting  
> test cases.
>
> I am not aware of any substantial discussions that haven taken place  
> between browser makes that should have taken place on this mailing  
> list.
> Given that you imply a "historical pattern", do you have any  
> specific issues in mind where this has been a problem in the past?
>
> Thanks,
> Lars Erik
>
> John Morris wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> It appears from the F2F agenda that we will be spending 2.5 hours  
>> on "Current incompatibilities between implementations."  The fact  
>> that this is on the agenda for a substantial length of time  
>> certainly implies:
>>
>> 1) that there are such incompatibilities, and
>> 2) that the browser makers have had at least some discussions of  
>> these incompatibilities (or else it would not have ended up on the  
>> agenda)
>>
>> There has, however, been no hint or mention of incompatibilities on  
>> the W3C mailing list.  This is consistent with the historical  
>> pattern in this WG, where most substantive discussions happen  
>> somewhere else other than on the WG list.
>>
>> As a courtesy to WG members who are attending the F2F, it would be  
>> helpful if someone could summarize for the list the  
>> incompatibilities that we will be discussing.  More generally, if  
>> there are other facts, developments, or discussions about other  
>> topics that will be discussed at the F2F that have not previously  
>> been mentioned or discussed on the list, it would be appropriate to  
>> share that information with the list before the F2F.
>>
>> Thanks, John
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 30 October 2009 15:07:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 March 2012 18:13:45 GMT