Re: Spec changes for LCs and later maturity levels

On 2011-11-04 17:10, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> ...
> The group discussed this on October 31 [1]. The gist of the agreement is
> that since the text that is now in the API spec used to be in the
> protocol spec, the totality of a review of the two specs is effectively
> the same. In this view, the change to the API spec is not substantive.
> ...

Doesn't compute. The text was *removed* from the protocol spec because 
the WG found it to be misleading (suggesting WS URIs are different from 
other URIs). It was *not* removed because we thought it belongs 
somewhere else. Also, in case that wasn't clear, it was *replaced* by 
different text.

>> 2. The substantive issue of whether the text is correct. Julian asked
>> some questions about that, and I'd be curious to see replies (especially
>> because they are related to similar topics in HTML5).
>
> I think we need to continue to move forward and to acknowledge several
> implementations of the API spec have been deployed. As such, I tend to
> think we may have already passed the point of diminishing returns
> regarding minor tweaks to the spec and if there are bugs, in the spec,
> please file bugs and we can address them during CR.
> ...

Right now, the spec "uses" an algorithm without actually referring to 
it. A *minimal* fix is to make that a proper reference.

Best regards, Julian