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

On Dec 6, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>>
>> 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?

I think the bottleneck for Web Storage is not editing time but rather  
design issues. In particular, no one has proposed a solution to the  
mutex problem that everyone is on board with. I expect the mutex issue  
to be raised in Last Call feedback and I expect it will be difficult  
to resolve. I actually had the same thought as Ian when I saw Art's  
staggered schedule - that Web Storage would probably be one of the  
hardest to finalize, not one of the easiest.

Note though: process-wise, Web Storage being in LC *is* a blocker to  
the Widgets specification going to REC. Per W3C Process, a  
specification cannot go to PR or REC unless all of its dependencies  
are at REC. It's true though that it would not be a blocker to going  
to CR.

Regards,
Maciej