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

Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion

From: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:14:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKA+AxnUxBEk+c31YrB83vOjcJGw0VD1+kEjGsuvT+fMapgA8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan@mozilla.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, W3C WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
> Does it have to be an either-or situation? Given that there are pressures to
> publish in REC, to have a version which follows various procedures, it seems
> plausible that the two can coexist.

That's true, but there's no rush to create an extra copy.  The spec
wouldn't be ready for CR for at least a year or two, so there's no
advantage at all to having extra EDs and WDs floating around.  People
can give feedback on the preliminary drafts just as well whether it's
officially on REC track or not.  If it proves to be useful to have a
copy published in the WebApps WG too, that can easily be arranged
later.

For the time being, I would like to use this opportunity to test
whether Community Groups can stand on their own *without* merely being
satellites of regular Working Groups.  For instance, Community Groups
have their own patent policy, and it remains to be seen whether that
will be effective enough without the regular patent policy being
applicable to the same drafts.  We won't find out if the same draft is
covered by the regular patent policy as well.  If there are any
deficiencies with Community Groups as compared to regular Working
Groups, we won't find out if the draft is a Working Group deliverable
too.

Again, none of this is to deny the possibility of the draft eventually
being moved to REC track.  But I don't yet want to deny the
possibility of the draft *not* being moved to REC track, either.  We
should keep our options open until we see how well CGs work.

> Though it's sometimes cumbersome, I've accepted that I must review at least
> two drafts when looking at specs these days. I'm at peace with that, now.

I'm not.  I would like to avoid multiple drafts if at all possible.
Fortunately, no notable spec but HTML5 (and semi-broken-off parts like
Web Sockets or Web Workers) has multiple versions that are appreciably
different.  If there wind up being multiple drafts for licensing or
patent reasons, I'd expect them to be exact mirrors, as with DOM4.
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2011 18:46:25 GMT

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