W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2017

Re: Transition Request: WebDriver to Candidate Recommendation

From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:17:56 +0900
To: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, David Burns <dburns@mozilla.com>, Simon Stewart <shs@rocketpoweredjetpants.com>, www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <20170317061756.qx2hf7k5ac65iuuq@sideshowbarker.net>
"Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, 2017-03-17 08:23 +0900:
> 
> "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, 2017-03-12 16:39 +0900:
> > Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, 2017-03-10 15:26 -0500:
> > > Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/26897535-6642-88eb-e15f-ad8bb7c1ec6d@w3.org>
...
> > > > https://github.com/w3c/webdriver/issues
> > > 
> > > I see 19 open issues not tagged as 'enhancement'.  What are the Group's
> > > expectations about those issues?
...
> After examining those issues, the determination is that they fall into
> categories of either just editorial clarifications or else cases where a
> part of the spec is underspecified to the point that while some additional
> normative text may be needed, its addition will not change the
> implementation requirements but instead will, e.g., remove any ambiguities.
> 
> We have been meaning to go through them all and add an “underspecified” or
> “clarification” label as needed, and have not got around do it doing it yet
> but will soon.

All those issues have now been labeled. The bulk of them are now labeled
“clarification”, which includes both editorial clarifications and also the
underspecified cases I described earlier.

Five of them have been labeled “bug”. One of those is a change to a non-
normative example. The rest are refinements to normative text but are
“housekeeping” changes in nature—either the result of a reviewer catching
some language that should have already been dropped but got overlooked, or
otherwise catching something where it’s already know that no implementations
match the existing language, so it needs to be tweaked to match what is
known to be actually implemented.

> In the mean time, we think that none of them are anything that should block
> the transition to CR, so we’d like to go ahead with the transition, with
> that understanding.

Our assessment of those open issues remains that none of them will require
implementations to change any behavior and none invalidate previous
reviews, and so we’d be confident in going ahead with CR transition and
resolving all of those issues during the CR period.

  —Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith https://sideshowbarker.net/

Received on Friday, 17 March 2017 06:18:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 17 March 2017 06:18:28 UTC