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

Re: Length of LC comment period

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:04:49 +0100
Message-ID: <4B1F6831.8050507@opera.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>


Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 6:09 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheer up, I can think of _much_ worst things that have popped out of
>>>>> the W3C onto the Web than Web Storage:)
>>>>
>>>> Yeah but they typically have minimal impact on the deployed Web,
>>>> unlike the storage mutex problem.
>>>
>>> So hang on... Why are going to LC if this is such a massive issue?
>>
>> Well from the point of view of the spec, the issue is resolved. It "just"
>> has unfortunate performance implications for multi-process UAs.
>
> It seems pretty clear that multi-process UAs are refusing to implement
> the requirement. It also seems likely that more UAs will go multiprocess
> over time. Thus, it may not be possible to exit CR with this requirement.

For this case, I don't see why the spec can't just describe the expected 
behavior and leave it to implementations to figure out how to solve the 
issue. It seems like being algorithmically over prescriptive here will 
lock people into certain architectures. If the prescribed behavior 
proves to be impossible to implement during CR, then we can drop back to 
LC and write the algorithm to solve this in prose.

Kind regards,
Marcos
Received on Wednesday, 9 December 2009 09:05:39 GMT

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