- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 14:12:46 -0700
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Hill, Brad" <bhill@paypal-inc.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, "public-web-security@w3.org" <public-web-security@w3.org>, Daniel Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com>
On Jul 5, 2011, at 8:57 , Marcos Caceres wrote: > Hi Brad, > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Hill, Brad <bhill@paypal-inc.com> wrote: >> Well, my disagreement is not with its content; I think we should not move forward with this spec at all. >> >> I feel that the goals of this draft are either inconsistent with the basic architecture of the web, cannot be meaningfully accomplished by the proposed mechanism, or both, and I haven't seen any discussion of these concerns yet. >> > > Publication will enable wider discussion - particularly wrt the issues > you have raised. Not publishing it is tantamount to saying "I OBJECT > TO PROGRESS!". If you are correct, more people will see it and the > proposal will be shot down. Otherwise, other opinions will flourish > that may sway your position (or a new perspective will emerge all > together). In any case, calling for a spec not to be published, no > matter how bad it is, is not the right way to do this. Publishing a > spec is just a formality which can lead to discussion. > I guess this raises two questions... a) I would obviously like to hear more about Marcos's objections, and I suppose that I will b) probably not in this forum, I'd be curious to know what the valid reasons might be to objecting to publication at all, if "I don't think this spec. should exist" is not one of them. If there are no valid grounds for objection, we wouldn't bother asking for consensus. Personally, I think publishing a WD indicates some consent that work in a given area should be considered and is relevant. David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2011 21:13:26 UTC