W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

From: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 18:07:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD73mdJKvv=U3SD-z5AF0iXK9FO88awRPYGtxFE_rAMKt-7_hQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

>
> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I object to this publication because of this change:
>> >>
>> >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/rev/2341e31323a4
>> >>
>> >> pushed with a misleading commit message.
>> >
>> > since you don't say what is misleading, and since commit messages are
>> > irrelevant for W3C process, this  objection is immaterial
>>
>> Ms2ger objected to the change, not the commit message, so your
>> objection to the objection is misplaced.
>>
>> However, the commit message isn't long, so it's not difficult to
>> puzzle out what ey might be referring to.  In this case, it's the
>> implication that changing a bunch of normative references from WHATWG
>> specs to W3C copies of the specs is somehow necessary "according to
>> pubrules".
>>
>
> Then whomever ms2ger is should say so. In any case, there  is no reason to
> reference a WHATWG document if there is a W3C counterpart.
>

Sure there is if the W3C version is stale, as is the case here.  That
commit replaced a link to http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/, last updated roughly
a week ago, with a link to http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/ which is
dated January 17th and is missing an entire section (section 6).  It also
replaced a link to http://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/# with
http://www.w3.org/TR/cors/# which is similarly out of date by the better
part of a year and lacking handling for some HTTP status codes.  Every
single reference updated in this commit changed the document to point to an
out-of-date and less valuable resource.

It seems that you, like the author of the commit message, mistakenly think
it's a goal to replace all links to point to W3C resources even when they
are strictly worse.  That's not in the W3C pub rules or a good idea.

- James


>
>
Received on Sunday, 2 December 2012 02:08:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:56 GMT