W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > February 2008

RE: IE Team's Feedback on the XHR Draft

From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 08:52:59 -0800
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Sunava Dutta <sunavad@windows.microsoft.com>, "public-webapi@w3.org" <public-webapi@w3.org>, Gideon Cohn <gidco@windows.microsoft.com>, Zhenbin Xu <zhenbinx@windows.microsoft.com>, Marc Silbey <marcsil@windows.microsoft.com>, Ahmed Kamel <Ahmed.Kamel@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <14636E983DBC96408C4D669AFA9B86C0335623F611@NA-EXMSG-W602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
I think there are a few misconceptions about Sunava's feedback.

1) In NO WAY do we want the specification to be less detailed.  MORE detailed, if anything.
2) In fact, on that note, we're interested to see the test suite be linked, normatively if necessary.
3) we are not intending to block last call, and we understand the Process.  Sunava had promised to send comments, and has done so.  We would still like to see these comments addressed in the specification, and not simply dismissed; whether that is prior to or post LC is not, I think, that important.


-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Schepers [mailto:schepers@w3.org]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 1:54 AM
To: Maciej Stachowiak
Cc: Anne van Kesteren; Sunava Dutta; public-webapi@w3.org; Gideon Cohn; Zhenbin Xu; Chris Wilson; Marc Silbey; Ahmed Kamel
Subject: Re: IE Team's Feedback on the XHR Draft

Hi, Folks-

To be clear, I'm not critiquing the spec itself, or advocating any
specific action.  Rather, I'm trying to manage expectations and ensure
that the various participants of this WG can work smoothly with one
another.  I'm acting purely as a Process wonk here.

Sunava, as you see, there is considerable, and reasonable, incentive to
make the XHR spec as detailed as possible, even where it may not match
the IE implementation precisely.  Maciej's request for more specific
details on potential conflicts (in implementations or content) is
appropriate, I think.

I don't know if you are familiar with the W3C Recommendation Track [1],
so briefly, you should know that LC (Last Call) is not the end of the
process.  It simply indicates that the specification is believed to have
satisfied its technical requirements; it's not considered stable enough
for implementation, and in practice, this is when most comments are made.

Thus, I see little harm in advancing to LC, since you will still have an
opportunity to submit additional technical comments.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr


Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
Received on Friday, 8 February 2008 16:53:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 February 2008 16:53:18 GMT