W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: CfC: FPWD of Web Messaging; deadline November 13

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:18:34 -0500
Message-ID: <4CDBDF1A.1040303@nokia.com>
To: ext Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Nov/6/2010 6:04 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> Ian, All - during WebApps' November 1 gathering, participants expressed
>> in an interest in publishing a First Public Working Draft of Web
>> Messaging [1] and this is a CfC to do so:
>>
>>    http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/
>>
>> This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's
>> decision to request advancement".
> I'd rather not add another document to the list of documents for which I
> have to maintain separate W3C headers and footers at this time (especially
> given that I'm behind on taking the other drafts I'm editing to LC). The
> text in the spec really belongs in the HTML spec anyway and is already
> published by the WHATWG in the HTML spec there, and is already getting
> ample review and maintenance there, so I don't think it's especially
> pressing to publish it as a separate doc on the TR/ page. (The contents of
> the doc have already gone through FPWD at the W3C, so there's not even a
> patent policy reason to do it.)

I think we all understand the workload issue here and I probably should 
have mentioned this CfC to you before sending it to public-webapps (so 
sorry about that!).

When WebApps re-chartered last Spring, Web Messaging was added to our 
Charter thus there is an expectation we will publish it.

Assuming we get consensus to publish the FPWD, one way to move forward 
with the publication would be for me [and Mike Smith if he's available] 
to copy the latest ED and only make required changes to the text to pass 
Pub Rules e.g. update the Status of the Doc section. Would that be OK?

> I'm also a bit concerned that every time we publish anything on the TR/
> page, we end up littering the Web with obsolete drafts (since the specs
> are maintained much faster than we publish them). I'd really rather just
> move away from publishing drafts on the TR/ page at all, if we could
> update the patent policy accordingly. I frequently get questions in
> private e-mails from implementors who are looking at obsolete drafts on
> the TR/ page about issues that have long been solved in the up to date
> drafts on dev.w3.org or at the WHATWG.
>
> If there wasn't such high overhead to publishing on the TR/ page, an
> alternative would be to publish a new draft there frequently. In fact, the
> best thing on the short term might be to publish a new REC-level draft
> there every week or every month or some such (probably the best interval
> would be whatever the patent policy's exclusion window is), since that
> would actually make the patent policy work again. (Currently the patent
> policy at the W3C is almost as useless as at the IETF since when we follow
> the process properly, we almost never get to REC.)

I think these are good discussion topics and I would prefer to not let 
them block this CfC.

Perhaps some other Public mail list (i.e. not public-webapps) would be a 
better place for related discussions although I don't have a firm 
recommendation (www-talk?).

Mike, Team - can you provide some advice here on a Public list for 
discussions related to process and publication issues?

-Art Barstow
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 12:19:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:41 GMT