Moving Posts Re: publishing new WD of URL spec

Domenic,
Replying to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014JulSep/0497.html

Le 11 sept. 2014 à 06:58, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> a écrit :
> internet, and causing developer and implementer confusion. (See links in [1];
> [1]: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/TR_strikes_again

Hmm 5 evidences seem hardly a proof of systemic failure. Or more exactly in any system, you will be to extract something which will incriminate the system. I'm pretty sure digging up we could find the same type of issues with references to WHATWG website, IRC, etc.

That apart, this is not a very interesting discussion. 
WHATWG was created for solving an issue related to HTML not being maintained. Many people people praised the efforts, others despise it, but we could read and there that the efforts were done in a good will. In 2007 the HTML work was restarted at W3C with a larger context than browsers implementers. Maybe you were too young at the time or less involved. Your first message seems to be around July 2011 (except one in 2001?)

Then each time W3C tried to tackle an issue brought by WHATWG about the Process. The W3C approached it in a way which includes more stakeholders. It makes it indeed harder to resolve, but that's normal. 

My trouble is about WHATWG moving posts all the time to not have to come back to W3C at all. It's a known tactic. 


> An alternate way of addressing the formal objection would be outline a very clear process for avoiding the dangers that have cropped up in previous WHATWG copies. This would include, among other things: an automated system for ensuring that the latest version of the upstream spec is always copied to TR; a blacklisting of outdated snapshots from search engines via robots.txt; some way of dealing with the fact that webapps patent commitments will be made to an outdated snapshot, but that snapshot should not be given any prominence for implementers or authors visiting the W3C website; and a public acknowledgement that implementers should not look at any outdated snapshots such as CR (so, the normal "call for implementations" would have to be modified, so we don't get ridiculous situations like HTML 5.0 is currently undergoing where you call for implementations of a spec that is multiple years behind what implementations actually need to implement for interoperability).

This seems interesting. (btw the robots.txt hack I proposed it in the past, it has its own issues but let's say we can live with it). 
Would that process exist, would it mean that the work could be done at W3C? And we could all declare victory by saying "Pfew we solved what was harming our work for the Web. The WHATWG has no more reason to exist. Bug is RESOLVED FIXED."
 


-- 
Karl Dubost 🐄
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/

Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 01:13:55 UTC