Re: ACTION-77: Propose at-risk wording

On Monday, March 28, 2011, 8:58:41 AM, Maciej wrote:

MS> On Mar 21, 2011, at 8:22 AM, John Hudson wrote:

>> Maciej,

>> Before the From Origin idea was put forward, there was formal consensus around the existing same origin text (i.e. there had been no formal objection to it, despite reservations reported by Håkon), and there was certainly consensus that some form of same origin restriction for WOFF was desirable. Yes, there is now consensus that same origin restriction would be better dealt with at the CSS level and that From Origin is a better mechanism, but since that mechanism doesn't exist yet, WG members  on the conference call three weeks ago voted to keep the existing language but mark it at risk, which Chris indicated was a reasonable thing to do within W3 protocols.

>> So, is there a way to resolve your objection while at the same time respecting those WG members who are uncomfortable removing all reference to same origin restriction from the WOFF spec while there is as yet no replacement mechanism?

MS> If people are skeptical of the alternate solution materializing,

Right. Or at least, cautious until it has.

MS>  needs
MS> someone to move the From-Origin spec forward, then Apple might be
MS> able to provide some editorial resources while Anne is on vacation.

That would be very helpful. Depending on a draft proposal that has not been adopted, much less published, by a WG and whose proposer is on a 3-month hiatus is a problem, even though the spec is quite small. An active editor from Apple, who would move the spec forward in a timely manner, would be invaluable.

MS> This would resolve my concern with abusing the "at risk" mechanism.

Thanks for clarifying your concern.

Incidentally, marking a feature as 'at risk' because it might be dropped is an entirely appropriate use of the at-risk mechanism. Dropping it because a similar or better feature is being developed elsewhere and might be ready in time, similarly is entirely appropriate. So the process component of your issue does not seem to have merit; lets's concentrate on the technical and workflow aspects, which do.



-- 
 Chris Lilley   Technical Director, Interaction Domain                 
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
 Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups

Received on Monday, 28 March 2011 07:33:41 UTC