- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:18:29 +0100
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- CC: ext Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
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
Received on Friday, 4 November 2011 16:25:47 UTC