- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 20:20:35 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11326 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |ian@hixie.ch Resolution| |NEEDSINFO --- Comment #2 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2010-12-13 20:20:34 UTC --- Standardisation is the last step one takes to do this kind of thing. First, you need to research the use cases and requirements by discussing the issue with authors and implementors, on a public list (e.g. public-html@w3.org). Then you need to come up with a clear description of the problem that needs to be solved, including any security issues. (For example, your description above doesn't discuss the problem of whether a Comcast customer should have his Comcast set-top box accessible to http://attacker.evil.example/, or whether only comcast.com should have access to it.) Then, you discuss your problem proposal with authors and implementors. Read the responses. Listen to the feedback. Consider whether your ideas are good solutions to the use cases and requirements put forward. Discussions here should be done in public, e.g. on an archived public mailing list or documented in blogs. Once the problem is well-established, you get implementors to commit to implementing the feature. If you can't get several implementors to implement the feature, then get at least one user agent to implement it experimentally. Experimental implementations should be publicly available. Only once you have experimental implementations or a number of committed implementors, as well as a clear problem description, is it appropriate to consider the issue for standardisation. Even then, you will need to document the experience found from any implementations, the use cases and requirements that were found in the first step, the data that the design was based on, and so forth, as well as demonstrate the importance of the problem, and demonstrate that the solution is one that will be used correctly and widely enough for it to solve the stated problem. Typically at this step the original design gets thrown out and a significantly better design is developed, informed by the previous research, new research, and implementation and author experience with experimental implementations. Sometimes, the idea is abandoned at this stage. Only after this is the spec updated. EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Did Not Understand Request Change Description: no spec change Rationale: See above. Before this can be added to the platform's specifications, we need significantly more research and experimental implementation experience. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 13 December 2010 20:20:39 UTC