W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > June 2013

Re: status of phase 1 work items?

From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 01:20:20 +0100
To: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
Cc: "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <97623A37E3124C04BE2AFF5002D078DF@marcosc.com>


On Thursday, 20 June 2013 at 18:08, Dave Raggett wrote:

> On 20/06/13 17:45, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> >  
> > On Thursday, June 20, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Dave Raggett wrote:
> > > Several of the specs have been updated since the FPWD was published, and
> > > are candidates for updated public working drafts. Any suggestions for
> > > which ones are ready, or soon will be?
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > I would not be in favor of republishing any of the specs until we feel they are ready for LC (or only to meet the heartbeat requirement). In the specs we have published so far, we are still dealing with the feedback from public-script-coord.
>  
> The usual idea is to update the public Working Draft to mark progress  
> whenever there has been significant round of changes to the editor's draft.

The problem is that the specs on /TR/ fall out of date too quickly and it's too slow to republish (not your or the W3C's fault, it's just reality). Consider, since Monday, we've made close to 100 changes to the spec and closed numerous bugs - see list of changes:
https://github.com/sysapps/telephony/commits/noLegacyStyle  

I think it's better to encourage people to always read the Editor's draft and just use FPWD and LC for IPR commitments (hence the inclusion of the blue bar in the telephony spec). Last I heard PLH and co. are working to allow Editor's drafts on /TR/ to overcome the problem above. It's why I'm more inclined to only publish for important milestones.  
>  
> > > I am also interested in a crisper understanding of where we are in
> > > respect to the manifest and App URI work items.
> >  
> >  
> > I want to layer app: URI on top of the fetch spec [1] (it's mostly a cosmetic change). But apart from that, app: URI just needs a test suite, the privacy aspects need to be tightened, and then it's ready for LC.
> >  
> > Anyone wanna help with the test suite? ;)
>  
> Good ask! We need to do this for all of the phase 1 work items.
Yes. No test suite, no LC! That's what I always say :)  
  
> > > However, I am not quite sure where things stand withrespect to the SysApps extension spec, and the SysApps AppURI spec.
> > >  
> > > A further question is where are in respect to starting phase 2? Am I
> > > correct in assuming that we are already welcoming contributions on use
> > > cases and requirements? Are we expecting to see draft specifications in
> > > time for the Toronto face to face in late August?
> >  
> >  
> > I don't think we should rush into those unless we have editorial resources (and currently we are stretched pretty thin). IMHO, we should continue to work hard towards getting the current Phase 1 specs to Last Call by the Toronto meeting.
>  
> I suspect that we will get some additional editors for the phase 2  
> items, e.g. Gemalto may offer to edit the Secure Element API.
>  

Would be niceā€¦ though getting help with the security stuff Jonas raised in his follow up email would be better. Without us getting agreement on the stuff he mentioned, all this stuff might be for nothing so we need more people focusing on that (including myself!).  
Received on Friday, 21 June 2013 00:20:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:36:13 UTC