W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

RE: [WebStorage] Concerns on spec section 'Processing Model'

From: Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti <Laxmi.Oruganti@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 00:50:04 +0800
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>, Aaron Boodman <aa@google.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C84F9222BE3A34439A7F58655086DFD70CD68C39E7@AA-EXMSG-C426.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com>
That definitely relaxes my mind :).  And, thanks for pointing me to the exact text.


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 7:11 AM
To: Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti
Cc: Nikunj R. Mehta; Aaron Boodman; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: RE: [WebStorage] Concerns on spec section 'Processing Model'

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti wrote:
> I am unable to understand on how we are expecting spec readers to 
> interpret the spec lines.  At one end, we are not open to make it clear 
> that it is a hint/model, and on the other end we are ok to not 
> implementing that way.  Think about a person reading the spec, who is 
> *not* in touch with this discussion forum; he immediately will conclude 
> that he *must* implement in the same way as we describe in the spec.  
> So, yes his implementation will be interoperable but we are essentially 
> making whole world implement the way we want:(.  I sincerely hope people 
> put the readers hat than editors hat here.  It is so sad to see people 
> are hesitant to detail out implantation aspects as hints.  I now have a 
> great respect for IETF specs, where they detail out everything in clear.  
> If we want the spec to have quality, then I suggest keep implementation 
> details completely out, but if we think that it is not the way W3C specs 
> are written.  Then, I would suggest keep those implementation details as 
> hints and have the spec text clear like for example "The database system 
> should allow only one writer at a time. *One way* vendors could ensure 
> this is by taking up an exclusive lock on the database file ".

The conformance section says:

# Conformance requirements phrased as algorithms or specific steps may be 
# implemented in any manner, so long as the end result is equivalent. (In 
# particular, the algorithms defined in this specification are intended to 
# be easy to follow, and not intended to be performant.)
 -- http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/#conformance-requirements

Is that not clear enough?

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 16:50:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:18 UTC