Re: WebIDL Spec Status

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> > On 6/24/14, 1:05 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> > > Such device certification regimes cannot work unless the referenced
> > > specifications are locked down and clearly implementable.
> >
> > I see.
> >
> > So this is not about actual spec implementations or spec authors but
> > effectively about a QA cycle that compares the implementations to the
> > specs, and which needs to know which spec to compare the implementations
> > to.
>
> Compraing implementations to anything but the very latest draft is not
> only a waste of time, it's actively harmful to interoperability. At no
> point should any implementor even remotely consider making a change from
> implementing what is currently specified to what was previously specified,
> that would literally be going backwards.
>

That sounds reasonable, but its not always true (an exception to every
rule, eh). For example, in order to ship a device that must satisfy
compliance testing to be certified, e.g., to be granted a branding label,
to satisfy a government mandate, etc., it may be necessary to implement and
ship support for an earlier version.

In the case of WebIDL, my personal preference would be to not spend
precious effort on WebIDL 1 CR, but instead to:

(1) publish WebIDL 1 CR as a WG Note without attempting to resolve
outstanding issues, other than by clearly annotating the existence of those
issues in the Note;
(2) focus on moving WebIDL 2E (2nd edition) to FPWD and thence to LC, etc.

If this process is followed, then it also may be useful to relabel these
two works a bit, e.g., by calling what is now WebIDL CR something like
"WebIDL Legacy" in a WG Note, and then using the generic name WebIDL for
what is now called WebIDL 2E. Just an idea to consider.