W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2008

Re: Why "Platform Core" and "HTML5" are in the same spec

From: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:28:43 -0800
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <470BE634-5BE9-4FA7-8BAD-B088BD58C340@oracle.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>


On Nov 21, 2008, at 3:08 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>
>>> I expect when there are fewer more pressing matters (like the
>>> thousands of outstabding e-mails of feedback) that we can split out
>>> the storage section into its own document much like the workers
>>> section, and the "Web SQL" definition can live there. Or it could be
>>> is own spec. I don't really mind. It's mostly academic at this  
>>> point.
>>
>> Hu?
>>
>> My impression was that we have a volunteer -- Nikunj -- and you just
>> turned down his offer. How is that academic?
>
> The section in question is basically complete; splitting it out now  
> would
> be a net cost in time and would slow down progress. Or to put it  
> another
> way, we already have a volunteer who is actively doing the work: me. I
> don't mind doing the editorial work to split it into a separate  
> spec, at
> some later time when there aren't more pressing matters. Other than  
> that,
> which I'd have to do anyway, there's basically nothing to do at this  
> point
> on the API definitions.
>
>
>>>> That sounds backwards to me. How is the second implementation
>>>> supposed to come into existence then? Why not specify, implements,
>>>> test, and re-iterate that process?
>>>
>>> Sure, if someone wants to volunteer and wants to do it that way
>>> instead, then that's fine by me too. So long as the implementors are
>>> on board and we end up with interoperable implementations, I don't
>>> really care how it's done.
>>
>> Aha. We have a volunteer, as far as I understand, and judging from  
>> his
>> email address, a likely competent one. Why would implementors be  
>> not on
>> board, if their feedback is treated as it should?
>
> My impression is that Nikunj volunteered to edit the API  
> definitions, not
> the Web SQL language.

I was signing up to edit the SQL language, the offline cache, which in  
my opinion is spec bloat (unnecessary sync algorithm and format) that  
misses a key primitive, and server-sent events, which also creates  
spec bloat (by defining a specific and limited format for events). All  
three pieces, especially the latter two, should be on the table.

There is already some support for this proposal, I thought from the  
conversation so far.

> Nikunj, if I misunderstood and you are in fact volunteering to edit  
> the
> Web SQL language spec, then my apologies. I definitely support that  
> and
> would encourage you to start whenever you want. There is nothing in  
> the
> HTML5 spec today to split out for that, and there is no pending  
> feedback
> on the matter other than "we need a spec", so no need to coordinate  
> with
> me at this point. Just start editing. :-)
>
> -- 
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                ) 
> \._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _ 
> \  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'-- 
> (,_..'`-.;.'

[1] 
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 23:29:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:59 UTC