W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Blocker for PR: links to HTML5 spec

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 14:16:43 -0400
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1301941003.19734.10.camel@chacal>
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 17:54 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 07:50 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, Zhiheng Wang wrote:
> > > >
> > > >    Philippe and I sync'ed up after the F2F meeting last Friday and we've 
> > > > decided to resolve these references and making the spec (mostly) 
> > > > self-contained. I am going over the references and see
> > > > 
> > > >    - if it's a concept, we can leave the reference as it is.
> > > >    - if it's a process, we will keep a snap shot of the referred section in
> > > >    the current draft.
> > > 
> > > That seems like a really bad idea... what if the definitions change? The 
> > > worst possible outcome would be for the two specs to diverge, resulting in 
> > > conflicting requirements.
> > > 
> > > What problem does doing this solve?
> > 
> > We need to get Navigation Timing to REC and waiting 3 years isn't
> > practical.
> 
> Why would you wait 3 years?

Because the HTML5 spec won't be a REC before that.

> > If the definitions change in HTML5, it will break the Navigation Timing 
> > implementations in any case and we'll need to revisit our spec since 
> > some of our attributes may not make sense anymore.
> 
> So what difference does it make if you depend on the HTML spec or not?

The difference is that we will be allowed to move REC if we don't rely
on a WD normatively. If we keep the current dependency, we cannot move.

Philippe
Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 18:16:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:30 UTC