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

Re: Length of LC comment period [Was: Ready for LC on the various drafts I edit]

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 00:03:55 +0100
Message-ID: <b21a10670912061503ja8c861cib494d8385377c35d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> On Dec 4, 2009, at 7:19 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
>> > On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> > >
>> > > If we already have multiple implementations of a spec, I think the
>> > > spirit of the Recommendation track process suggests a shorter LC
>> > > period (say 2 months given the time of the year) and then (assuming
>> > > no substantive comments) moving the spec to Candidate.
>> >
>> > I don't realistically think I'd have time to address the likely volume
>> > of comments in two months, since I am also dealing with HTML5's last
>> > call comments in the WHATWG and will likely be starting work on some
>> > more specifications in January.
>>
>> Expediting the LC and CR could be important for dependencies. The only
>> dependency I know of without searching is the Widget Interface spec
>> (which is on schedule to enter CR in Jan) and it has a normative
>> dependency on Web Storage.
>>
>> Thus, another option is to stagger the LC comment periods. For example,
>> 1-2 of the more "baked" specs could have a shorter LC period e.g. 2-3
>> months, the medium baked specs 3-4 months, etc. Is something like that
>> workable for you, in particular making the exit of LC for Web Storage in
>> 2-3 months?
>
> Given the storage mutex problem, I would estimate that Web Storage is
> actually the draft that needs the longest review period. Going to CR in
> July would already be a huge acceleration on the schedule I have
> previously predicted, which was that these drafts would reach the CR stage
> in 2012. I'm very uncomfortable with accelerating the process even
> further; I think it would do a diservice to the Web.
>
> Process-wise, Web Storage being in LC is not a blocker to the Widgets
> specifications going to CR or even REC, so I do not believe that
> expediting the process is necessary for dependencies. In fact, I would
> argue that the opposite is true -- if we go to CR in two months, then have
> to go back to WD, LC, and CR again three times over the next two years,
> the effect on the Widgets specifications will be much more disruptive than
> if we spend 6 months or a year in LC before going to CR, and then stay
> there until the test suite and implementations are done.
>
Sorry Ian, you are assuming you are the only one that can edit that
spec. If you want help with editing the spec or with  the test suite,
just ask. I'm not saying I'll do it, but I can ask at Opera for one of
the WHATWG superstars to take it over. WDYT? or is it just too
entangled in  HTML 5 to let someone else edit it?

> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
>



-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Sunday, 6 December 2009 23:04:48 GMT

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