- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 09:36:56 -0700
- To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "ext Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter@stpeter.im>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 09:18:29 -0700, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > 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. Citation needed. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0640.html >> 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. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0661.html -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 4 November 2011 16:38:00 UTC