W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:52:04 -0400
Message-ID: <4E3C3BD4.2000609@mozilla.com>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
CC: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>
On 8/5/11 2:19 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 13:41 -0400, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
>> On 8/5/11 11:52 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 17:18 +0200, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>>>> Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version?
>>>> If there is something you need that is not in the W3C spec, then it seems like a valid reason (e.g., PeerConnection API or some helpful concept).
>>> Agreed, but no one has come up with such need so far.
>> I refer to the HTML WG's work as normative, but in the File API's
>> Editor's Draft [0], I'd also like to link to the WHATWG document as an
>> informative reference for the Stream API [1]  and LocalMediaStream [2].
>> This is a pragmatic, and not a political, cross-referencing.
> I have no issue with that. I would simply note that work is now ongoing
> in the WebRTC group so you might want to monitor what they're doing.

Duly noted!
>
>> Stream API reuses blob: URIs; LocalMediaStream defines globally unique
>> identifiers in a way that I find useful for the opaqueString
>> production.  I'm tidying up normative and informative links, and in
>> general, I think the time is ripe for a good discussion of affiliated
>> specifications.  Another area for coordination that I'd encourage is
>> between W3C and Khronos, if it isn't happening already.  For instance,
>> File API makes use of ArrayBuffer [3] *normatively* which is defined at
>> Khronos [3] and which is implemented in some user agents.  Is there a
>> formal liaison?  This will benefit WebGL as well.
> We don't have a formal liaison with Khronos at the moment. In fact, we
> don't do formal liaison in general, we prefer to have technical liaisons
> instead (ie directly from Working Group to Working Group). Why would we
> need to have a formal liaison in order to reference a specification? Are
> you aware of public-script-coord@w3.org [1] ?
>
> Philippe
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/

I'm aware of public-script-coord, and think WG-to-WG coordination is 
definitely more efficient for technical matters.  I assumed (perhaps 
incorrectly) existing relations between working groups across 
organizations (e.g. W3C/IETF) was by virtue of cross-organization 
coordination by W3C Team, but if you're happy with the status quo and 
think nothing needs to be done, I'm certainly happy :)

-- A*
Received on Friday, 5 August 2011 18:52:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT