W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2011

Re: REVERT REQUEST for "crossorigin" attribute

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:10:45 -0400
Message-ID: <4E0381A5.9090106@intertwingly.net>
To: public-html@w3.org
On 06/23/2011 01:38 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-06-23 19:31, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:24:01 +0200, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> I stand, loudly applaud and cheer Julian, then sit back down and shut
>>> up.
>>> He's said it - how does the WG plan to respond to this very real and
>>> honest statement? Are we in Last Call (first, second or 15th?), and does
>>> not that mean that the specification is "frozen" for wider review?
>>
>> It's quite normal for editor's drafts of Last Call documents to change
>> in response to feedback. E.g. something very similar happened to the
>> Progress Events specification the WebApps WG is developing.
>
> Yes.
>
> At some point we need to draw a line between bug fixing, editorial
> improvements, and new features. This is a new feature. New features, as
> far as I can tell, require a new LC.
>
> So can we please be frank about the fact that *this* LC really is a
> request for wider review, and that there really is no doubt that there
> will be another LC?

 From the W3C process document[1]:

"In practice, Last Call announcements generate comments that sometimes 
result in substantive changes to a document. A Working Group SHOULD NOT 
assume that it has finished its work by virtue of issuing a Last Call 
announcement."

It is also entirely possible that these changes will block advancement 
to Candidate Recommendation without a subsequent Last Call[2]

"Provide public documentation of all changes (both substantive and 
minor) to the technical report since the previous step. A substantive 
change (whether deletion, inclusion, or other modification) is one where 
someone could reasonably expect that making the change would invalidate 
an individual's review or implementation experience. Other changes 
(e.g., clarifications, bug fixes, editorial repairs, and minor error 
corrections) are minor changes."

At the current time, the decision process only requests but does not 
require prior discussion[3][4]:

"Therefore during the current pre-LC period, and during Last Call, 
feature additions or removals should only be done with sufficient prior 
notice to the group, in the form of a bug, a WG decision, or an on-list 
discussion."

  - - -

These are all good discussions to have, and I encourage you to have them 
either in the context of bug reports against the Decision Policy or by 
providing feedback against the W3C Process Document.

Meanwhile, I encourage you to resubmit this revert request focusing on 
the technical issue not the process changes you desire.

As an example, I do see "WebGL has some major security issues and this 
change is nothing more than addressing the tip of the ice berg while 
ignoring the rest. I think it is more dangerous to add than not.", but 
if that is more of a position than an argument.  Please explain why you 
think it is dangerous, with specifics.  Furthermore, it is not clear 
that WebGL is the only intended beneficiary for this change.

> Best regards, Julian

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#last-call
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#transition-reqs
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0125.html
[4] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 18:11:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:33 GMT