Re: Anyone interested in the Web Array Math API?

Having technical discussions around a technology or even potential API
isn't a problem; you're correct, that's what Community Groups are for.  If
the goal truly is to just generate a Rec-track specification, however,
that's not what they're for; they can effectively produce a Note
(approximately), that a Working Group (with its due process) could then rip
apart completely (i.e., the "input to the standards process" should not be
considered a fait accompli when it is handed to a Working Group).  That's
all I was trying to express.

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Marcus Geelnard <> wrote:

> Well, it's the first time I'm doing this, so please bare with me. The
> idea is basically to have technical discussions around a potential
> API. I don't see a problem with doing that around something looking
> like a spec (non standard-track of course), though. In fact, the
> Community and Business Group FAQ states, under "What is a W3C
> Community Group?":
> "A W3C Community Group is an open forum, without fees, where Web
> developers and other stakeholders develop specifications, hold
> discussions, develop test suites, and connect with W3C's international
> community of Web experts. Community Groups may produce Specifications;
> these are not standards-track documents but may become input to the
> standards process. [...]"
> /Marcus
> 2013/11/14 Chris Wilson <>:
> > If the goal of this group is to produced a specification, it really
> > shouldn't be done inside a Community Group.  Community Groups are only
> > intended to produce Community Group Reports (e.g., a technology
> innovation
> > from a small set of developers). As per the W3C's guidelines, Community
> > Groups Reports are not standards-track documents.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Jens Nockert <> wrote:
> >>
> >> I signed up.
> >>
> >

Received on Thursday, 14 November 2013 18:29:56 UTC