W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > January 2008

RE: ISSUE-20: Client and Server model [Access Control]

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 11:24:31 -0800
Message-ID: <BEBB9CBE66B372469E93FFDE3EDC493E0136CB57@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Web Application Formats Working Group WG" <public-appformats@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@opera.com] 
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:07 AM
> To: David Orchard; Web Application Formats Working Group WG
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-20: Client and Server model [Access Control]
> 
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:47:10 +0100, David Orchard 
> <dorchard@bea.com> wrote:
> > I don't understand why you think CR is the right time for 
> this issue.
> 
> Because the two views are mutually exlusive.
>

If the views are mutually exclusive and people disagree and file formal
objections, then the doc may never get to CR.  As per the process
document
(http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinor
ityViews), the related request to advance a document through the process
may be reviewed by the Director wrt to the objection.  It could easily
be that the Director would send an LC request back to the WD phase and
directing that there are stronger attempts at gaining consensus are done
or even that the decision is reversed.
 
> 
> > CR is a time to test whether the specification works and 
> there are a 
> > WG specific number of interoperable implementations.
> 
> You try to get implementations during CR.
> 

There's the gist of it, but there's a lot more detail to it than that
(http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi).  Specific
features may be highlighted as being at risk and removed, there are
usually guidelines for exactly how many implementations of which feature
sets need to be interoperable.  As per the process doc "At this step,
W3C believes the technical report is stable and appropriate for
implementation. " 

> 
> > That is way past the
> > time for doing major design decisions like whether PEP 
> should only be 
> > server or may be client.  If the specification changes 
> substantially 
> > at CR, such as changing a PEP decision, then the spec would go way 
> > back to WD.  Perhaps a half year change to go through WD, 
> LC, CR again?
> 
> Well, yes. However, it does not seem that the WG is convinced 
> by the other approach and that therefore it is best to treat 
> it as a formal objection and deal with it when going to CR.
> 

I think the issue was just raised on Dec 20th, so I think it's pretty
early to be declaring that consensus isn't possible. I haven't seen,
though I haven't looked very hard, the working group go through some of
the steps for managing dissent
(http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#managing-disse
nt).  One of the things we did in WSDL and WS-Policy was to find ask the
following questions:
1) who prefers x or !x
2) who can live with x or !x

If it turns out that there are strong objections to x and most people
can live with !x then the WG may be able to get to consensus.  

I'm not sure if that's helpful to the WG or not, but I hope so.

Cheers,
Dave
Received on Friday, 4 January 2008 19:25:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:56:21 UTC