W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Points of order on this WG

From: Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:22:52 -0700
Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Jeff Mischkinsky <JEFF.MISCHKINSKY@oracle.com>
Message-Id: <9FFFB796-3F22-4E09-AA98-033150296428@oracle.com>
To: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
On Jun 24, 2009, at 7:34 PM, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:

> "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>, 2009-06-24 17:13 -0700:
>
>> I want to raise two formal points of order about the manner in  
>> which this WG
>> has operated, particularly in respect to Web Storage.
>>
>> 1. Charter
>> 2. Process
>>
>> Firstly, no one seriously responds to proposals about things that are
>> officially in the WG's charter.
>
> That's not true.
>
> If you believe that's been the case with a specific proposal, then
> let's please talk about that specific proposal instead of turning
> this into a process discussion.

Please look to the bottom of my original email to see why this became  
a process discussion. If my interpretation is incorrect, please  
explain in the context of the specific details there instead of simply  
saying it is not true.

>
>> If there is inadequate interest, then we should get rid of the
>> responsibility from this WG's charter.
>
> If there's inadequate interest in *a particular proposal* from
> other members of the group -- particularly among the vendors who
> would be expected to implement it -- then that would be a pretty
> good indicator that an investment of the already-constrained
> resources of the group into trying harder to move that the
> proposal forward might not be an investment that's likely to pay
> off for us well as a group (in terms of actually being successful
> at getting it implemented in UAs).

1. Oracle provided use cases and requirements [1] around storage in  
Web browsers.
2. Oracle submitted a proposal first in October [2].
3. The WG's charter was changed and deliverables added without an open  
process [3].
4. Oracle revised its proposal in April [4] based on limited feedback  
on public-webapps. Oracle has also implemented this proposal in a  
browser plug-in for Safari and Firefox before submitting this proposal.
5. This WG provided two very brief sets of questions. I responded to  
both sets of questions without any delay, and assumed that the  
questions were answered. Of these one was simply asking me to go to  
HTML5 without attempting to address any of the requirements identified  
in [2] or the technical details of the revised proposal [4].
6. Then I asked for permission to add to the Web Storage draft, and  
was told that my proposal did not belong there, without any explanation.

On the other hand, there were no documented requirements for Web  
Storage (and most likely for other Web* FPWDs) until I asked for it.  
Even then all I get is one requirement "at least be as useful as  
SQL" [4a].

There has been reluctance to support for the current Web Storage  
draft's SQL mission in popular browsers. It is evident from [5], [6],  
and [7] and still we are consuming this WG's precious time for that  
proposal.

The policy of this group is to interpret silence as assent, isn't it.  
By that token, browser vendor members of this WG have have supported  
Oracle's current proposal because no one has said that implementing  
this spec is not in their and/or the Web's interest.

>
>> On the other hand, if Web Storage and related matters are in
>> this WG's charter based on this WG's agreement, there should be
>> feedback from its members,
>
> As far as I can see, that's already happening.

Not true in the case of Oracle's proposals.

>
>> and at least substantive discussions by its appointed editors.
>
> First off, Ian is not an appointed editor for the Web Storage
> draft. He's the editor of that particular draft by virtue of the
> fact that he's the one wrote it. But the fact that he wrote it
> and contributed it to the group does not magically bless it nor
> necessarily give it any position of special entitlement in the
> group. If you or any other member wants to contribute a related or
> alternative draft and check it into the group's document
> repository, you are very much encouraged to do so. We can then
> continue with discussion about it -- with a status of Editor's
> Draft in the group -- up to the point where we decide if/when we
> decide as a group that we want to transition it to a First Public
> Working Draft.

Let's see how this process works in practice. W3C is setting up a CVS  
account for me as we speak.

Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/0104.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/0130.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0251.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0341.html
[4a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0303.html
[5] http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.community.web-standards/msg/d6a92db27bd52bcb
[6] http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.community.web-standards/browse_frm/thread/da7000dcc486c0fb
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 19:25:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT