W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 13:23:20 +0100
Message-ID: <b21a10670912030423o3fb1302et315604fe428f709b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
Cc: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Marcin Hanclik
<Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com> wrote:
> Hi Art, Robin, Marcos,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
> Here is the consolidated answer.
>
> Just to clarify:
> I do not think that we should be so strict about the dates regarding the arrival of the comments.

If we were not strict, we would never publish. We are strict because
we get consensus on a draft from either 1) the WG or 2) in the case of
CR+, the Director and the Chairs.

> The flexibility is already present for many of the WebApps WG's specifications.

Only for typos, simple clarifications, and all non-normative text.
Art, being responsible for how this working group functions and
adheres to the W3C Process, makes sure of that.

You once accused us of being a kindergarten, and now you are asking us
to willfully violate the process?

>>>I believe all of the comments submitted during the LC#1 comment
>>>period (that ended 20-Sept-2009) were addressed. Since you indicate
>>>otherwise, please clearly identify any comment submitted during the
>>>LC comment period that was _not_ addressed.
> Yes, as far as I can tell all the comments provided in the LC#1 period were already addressed.
> It is my oversight to name the comments that arrived later as received within LC#1 period.
> I have just assumed that all comments - also those received after LC period - should be addressed.
>

Of course all emails will be addressed; we are not monsters. We
address all emails that come in and never ignore an email. However, we
are under no obligation to include those emails as part of the LC
process.

> As indicated earlier in this mail thread, the comments that in my opinion need technical answers stem from the mail thread [1].
> They arrived after LC#1.
>

Than they shall be addressed in the period between LC1 and LC2. But
will be part of neither unless they require a substantive change in
LC2.

> Technically the comments in [1] are about the flexibility of expressing the URIs by means of a pattern.
> [2] from Scott Wilson backs it up, although we seem to agree that regular expression is better name for the syntax.
> [3] from Stephen Jolly is about local network.
> [4] from Phil Archer about using POWDER.
> [5] from Bryan Sullivan about semantics of the special value U+002A ASTERISK (*).
>
> Some other comments started in [5] were already addressed.
>
> >From the comments [1]-[5] I derive that the general use case that people are asking for from WARP is the ability to flexibly (by some pattern / regexp) define the value of @origin attribute that later is to be applied to define some kind of local or private network, either by means of domain names (addressed in the current WARP based on the @subdomains attribute) or by IP addresses (not possible to realize efficiently based on the current WARP).
> Given the above use case, I think that the special value "local" could address it and together with @subdomains attribute covers all but one ([5]) from the above comments.
>
> In the light of LC#2 it seems that the my comments to CfC could be summarized as:
>
> Do the comments that arrived after the LC#1 deadline have to be repeated by their authors to get into LC#2 review (I assume not, but it is unclear to me).
>

Comments should be addressed and we should leave it to the editor and
chair to decide which comments become part of the Disposition of
Comments. Regardless, all comments will be addressed. Robin has always
addressed every comment that has come in.

> If not, then I assume they will be addressed in the LC#2 and I should not worry.

Yes, you can rest easy:)

> Additionally, I may be (again) wrong, but I assume that LC#2 should start once the group internally is aligned with regard to the already received comments.
>

We have already aligned. Hence this being public call for consensus.
You still have not presented any valid reasons to progress LC#1 to
LC#2.

>>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access-upnp/
>>This draft does not meet my expectations and we will _not_ publish a document that includes a copy of all of the WARP spec.
>>
>>It would be helpful to have a clear definition of at least: the problem statement, use case(s), requirement(s), security considerations,
>>proposed syntax and semantics, UA processing model.
> I slightly improved this document: added processing model and security considerations.
>
>> It will be potentially extremely short.
> The delta spec will come shortly (depending also on further discussion on the topics in this mail thread, maybe it could be addressed during LC#2?) and will contain the diff between WARP and WARP4U.
>

Maybe... I recommend that you formally re-raise the local pattern
issues once we publish LC#2 or continue working on your new spec
(which Opera supports, btw)... but please, remove all duplicate text
and keep is short, as Robin suggested.



-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 3 December 2009 12:24:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:35 GMT