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

Re: CfC: publish new WD of XHR; deadline December 5

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 22:57:05 +0100
To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "Adrian Bateman" <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Cc: "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.v5ty9fj964w2qv@annevk-macbookpro.local>
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:44:49 +0100, Adrian Bateman  
<adrianba@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I don't think it's pointless for the reasons I gave. One of the valuable
> aspects of the W3C is the traceability that comes from the archive in TR
> space. We have implementations of XHR L1 that, while not 100%, are mostly
> conforming deployed with customers.

Given the testsuite we have, that seems false, but okay.


> I am happy to help with whatever work is needed to make this happen. I
> haven't reviewed what errata have been added to the CR document in the
> editor's draft. If there's nothing significant (and I'd hope there  
> wouldn't be to a CR document) I think we could just publish the CR  
> document with
> appropriate editing as a Note and be done. It's the CR document I'd like
> to not leave dangling.

There's been plenty of errata. In fact, the WG determined there was within  
two weeks after publishing the Candidate Recommendation:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0448.html

And that was well over a year ago.


I only included drafts under "Previous Versions" that led up to the  
current draft. E.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-XMLHttpRequest2-20100907/  
was published just after the CR and offers a much better description of  
the same features. http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-XMLHttpRequest2-20110816/  
is even better, and http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html  
is best. We just reached CR because everyone was either tired of reviewing  
or could spot no more mistakes at that point. Soon after though when some  
tests were written, faults were uncovered. And I know we will uncover more  
in the future.

So that is why I think it is pointless to bestow some kind of meaning on a  
draft published well over a year ago. I also wish we'd have technical  
discussion, as at that Offline Workshop, rather than a procedural  
discussion whenever Art issues a CfC on one of the drafts I work on.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2011 21:57:51 GMT

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