- 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>
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 UTC