- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 06:52:31 -0400
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Xiaoqian Cindy Wu <xiaoqian@w3.org>
- CC: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 6/25/14 11:58 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: > 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. Well, I admit I like this proposal, quite a lot actually, however, I don't know if it will satisfy the relevant process requirements (f.ex. [NormRef]). (Perhaps I should move this proposal to the public-w3process list ...) Phillippe, Yves, Cindy - what are your thoughts on Glenn's proposal for v1? Glenn - would your v1 WG Note proposal satisfy all of the WebIDL reference cases that concern you (I'm wondering in particular about specs from other SSOs that reference WebIDL)? All - feedback on Glenn's proposal is certainly welcome. -Thanks, AB [NormRef] <http://www.w3.org/2013/09/normative-references>
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 10:52:55 UTC