W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Spec changes for LCs and later maturity levels

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:51:32 +0100
Message-ID: <4EB41814.2060108@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, ext Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 2011-11-04 17:36, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 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 pointed you to the thread on the HyBi mailing list that caused the 
change to happen (starting at 
<https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg07377.html>). The 
WG discussed the topic, I was asked to propose text, and the editor 
adopted it. As far as I recall, there was no further discussion. (that's 
how IETF WGs normally operate)

>>> 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

"You open the two dependencies, do a full text search, and you are done."

If you think that's sufficient then please have that text added to the 
spec, pointing out it applies to things that might be names of 
algorithms and which are marked up in bold (right?).

Personally, I don't think this is acceptable. Editorial glitches like 
this happen, and that's ok, but that doesn't mean it's ok to leave them 
in a published spec when the problem is discovered beforehand.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 4 November 2011 16:58:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:48 GMT