Re: publishing new WD of URL spec

On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 08:46 -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 9/11/14, 5:50 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> > Unless we missed it, I don't think that we ignored the feedback.
> 
> The working group sure did. 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2012Jun/0003.html is 
> the relevant feedback.  This was implementor feedback during the CR 
> period, and very definitely ignored.

I did some forensic on this. We did actually consider the comment, most
likely on June 13, 2012, but we failed to properly record it. It got
listed in our request to move to Proposed Recommendation as "Nav Timing
2", ie good idea but we'll push it for v2:
[[
CR-13 Define window.performance.toJSON
    MSIE defines window.performance.toJSON. Should we?
    (Nav Timing 2?)
]]
http://www.w3.org/2012/01/navigation-cr-issues.html

I realize we also failed to properly answer ms2ger as well so the end
result isn't different from ignoring it :(. It resurfaced at the most
recent TPAC btw and still didn't follow up properly. You raised it again
in August but we're just restarting following the break.

> > It's an iterative process. The Group has been working on Navigation
> > Timing 2 since then with the intent of replacing the first version of
> > Navigation Timing. Granted, we're not moving fast on Navigation Timing 2
> > and that's frustrating for some (and I share some of the blame for that
> > due to lack of cycles)
> 
> Adding stringifiers to this family of interfaces is not a matter of 
> "cycles": it's a trivial job.  It's a matter of policy and will to 
> actually have your specs be useful to implementors.

I raised the issue to make sure it stays in our radar and get resolved
once and for all:
 http://www.w3.org/2010/webperf/track/issues/18

Philippe

Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 14:06:45 UTC