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

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

From: Jungkee Song <jungkees@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 20:07:20 +0900
Message-ID: <CAGwV++cg+Mi1qk+M5dfHnvgApLaRgqXNjcjANPVsqgrq-wv2NA@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Art.Barstow@nokia.com, chaals@yandex-team.ru, schepers@w3.org, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, James Robinson <jamesr@google.com> wrote:
>
> Sure there is if the W3C version is stale, as is the case here.

I don't think it's a technical issue to discuss. There should be
corresponding publication rules.

Art, Charles, Doug,
Can you help clarifying which links we have to use?

In the proposed version, I've changed the links to the following specs:
- [CORS], [DOM], [DOMPS], [HTML] from the WHATWG version to the latest
W3C TR doc.
- [FILEAPI], [PROGRESSEVENTS], [WEBIDL] from the latest W3C ED to the
latest W3C TR doc.


> 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).

This change does not affect any links in the result doc, and in fact
this proposed publication will reduce the gap.

The proposed WD is aligned with the WHATWG version except:
- Progress Events is not merged but staying as a separate spec.
- Streams API is deferred to next version.
- The last three commits (Nov 22) in WHATWG has not been incorporated yet.


Jungkee


> 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 which is similarly out of date by the better part of a year and lacking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 commit changed the document to point to an out-of-date and less valuable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 11:13:24 GMT

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