W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2016

RE: Quick update on WebIDL "Level 1"

From: Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 07:35:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAci2aCaK8PsQ15ndUQGLYfo8_4a8dZr3Sru61Sf=3CJ32NHLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On July 9, 2016 at 6:24:56 AM, Domenic Denicola (d@domenic.me) wrote:
> From: Travis Leithead [mailto:travis.leithead@microsoft.com]
>
> > The purpose of the “Level 1” document is to serve as a stable reference for W3C specs that
> link to WebIDL. It contains a subset of the WebIDL syntax that is considered stable (as
> verified by interoperable tests). Implementations should not use the Level 1 document
> as a guide, but instead track changes to the editors draft. We expect to follow-up Level
> 1 with a Level 2 as additional editor’s draft syntax and behavior stabilizes, are implemented
> as part of other specs, and shown to be interoperable.
>
> Why is it acceptable for specs to reference a version of Web IDL that nobody should implement?

This is a totally valid question, but we've had this debate 1001
times. Perhaps a better question is: how can we get patent protection
(making this subset of WebIDL royalty free for society), but without
harming the ecosystem by confusing implementers and developers by
publishing on the "/TRash" space (as most of us now unfortunately
referring to it).

We need a way to clearly indicate that, for a subset of documents,
RECs on TR represent a royalty free set of ideas (as kindly and
honorably granted by the W3C Membership) - and should only be referred
to by patent lawyers and government officials. That it's for those
groups should be stated and promoted proudly, not disparagingly. And,
that implementers should be looking at the living document instead.
The value of TR need not be diminished - in fact: it should be
correctly used to published the documents that enshrine the royalty
free status of particular specifications.

Perhaps we need a new space just for documents that represent and
agree to set of royalty free ideas? (i..e, if it's a REC, it does into
this new space - and gets clearly marked for the appropriate target
audience, which is not implementers or developers - but patent lawyers
and government officials)...

I think we've also had this debate 10001 times too... but we need to
do something folks, as the division between the forks and the reality
of how web specs are developed is hurting everyone :(

Kind regards,
Marcos
Received on Sunday, 10 July 2016 14:36:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:40 UTC