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

Re: IE Team's Feedback on the XHR Draft

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:33:28 +0530
To: "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Cc: "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: <op.t571z2mdwxe0ny@widsith.local>

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:22:59 +0530, Chris Wilson  
<Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote:

> 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.

Yeah, we cleared that up at the technical plenary in my mind.

> 2) In fact, on that note, we're interested to see the test suite be  
> linked, normatively if necessary.

Yes. I think this is a valuable piece of feedback. Currently W3C process  
doesn't require test suites until you're trying to get out of CR and I  
think it would be better to have them earlier.

> 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.

OK, thanks. I have no intention of simply having comments dismissed. I  
have held the last call question open to allow for a sensible discussion.

What I am thinking now is that we should check whether there are  
substantive comments that need to be addressed before LC (on my first  
reading I don't think so), and continue pretty fast to last call. I would  
like the group to start checking the test cases we have against the spec  
and formally agreeing them to facilitate this linkage during last call. It  
slows down the LC period, but it should make CR easier and reduce the  
possibility of reverting from CR.

How do people feel about that as an approach?

Finally, on the question of what we agreed at the technical plenary, the  
minutes do not reflect any resolution that we agreed we would make a spec  
that is 100% compatible with IE - as Anne, Jonas and Maciej pointed out we  
started out working from existing implementation including IE and trying  
to make a spec that is as backwards compatible as possible, but that is  
*a* goal not the driving requirement.

Naturally any specific requests for technical changes are welcome either  
now or during Last Call, and will be considered on their merits. We had  
hoped that any such comments would have come in already but one of the  
reasons for going to last call when we have run out of comments at normal  
working draft is to elicit any outstanding issues.

So I plan to give it a few days (I am only partly available over the next  
few days, in India, Poland, Spain, Norway in the next week) and then I'll  
propose a formal consensus call on a way forward - based on the above  
thoughts and comments here over the next week.

cheers

Chaals

> -----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



-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Received on Friday, 8 February 2008 20:03:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 February 2008 20:03:49 GMT