CTG: current discussion (2)

The comments I submitted to the CTG Last Call on HTTPS and non-traditional browsing
applications are the source of some headache. Let me make clear up a few items before
the final decision is taken.

The points raised in my comments are fully within the scope of the Last Call.

1. The issues they address are not new: the CTG dedicate two sections specifically 
to them (4.1.3 and 4.2.9.3), which make it clear that the current situation is 
unsatisfactory, as was already concluded in previous discussions within the group.
2. The proposed approaches are not novel: they are equivalent to the solution applied
to other difficulties such as the identification of mobile content or the requirement
to deal with user preferences. They do not introduce new technology or depend on 
forthcoming specifications.
3. The comments were delivered within schedule, and in a suitably detailed format.
4. The official Last Call did not state clearly which kind of comments it was 
seeking -- no restrictions were imposed. Furthermore, the W3C process document
indicates (section 7.4.2):

"Ideally, after a Last Call announcement, a Working Group receives only
indications of support for the document, with no proposals for substantive
change. In practice, Last Call announcements generate comments that sometimes
result in substantive changes to a document. A Working Group SHOULD NOT assume
that it has finished its work by virtue of issuing a Last Call announcement."

Consequently, the proposals on HTTPS URL and AJAX/SOAP cannot be casually dismissed.
The group has one alternative:
a) Study the proposals in detail and judge them according to their intrinsic merits.
This term is probably the most reasonable approach, as the topics are important.
b) Take official responsibility for not considering them at this point, and include
them in their own section under section J "Scope for future work". 

In the latter case, nothing less will do than stating plainly that concrete, and
formally valid proposals to address the issues mentioned in sections 4.1.3 and 
4.2.9.3 were submitted in time, but that the group decided not to handle them. 

Burying the proposals in a resolution within meeting minutes -- which are difficult
enough to follow for people not participating in the activities of the group -- and
leaving interested people to figure out, amongst all messages posted in two mailing
lists during several years, whether there were relevant approaches at all to deal 
with unsolved issues, what they were, and why they were not integrated into the CTG,
is not acceptable. Explicit references to concrete, but unprocessed proposals is in
order:
1. to cut out the work of the possible future group dealing with the area;
2. to inform readers about potential solutions to two important issues;
3. to make it very clear that, as long as the concrete proposals have not been 
properly considered, these issues are unsettled, rather than being impossible to 
handle, as the current version of the CTG tends to impress upon readers;
4. to establish a balance between topics that are only indirectly relevant to content
transformation (such as POWDER), but deserve a mention in the CTG.

Finally, let us remember that the goal of the CTG work is not to publish a document 
so as to be able to sew an additional ribbon on the chest of the participants, but 
to regulate the behaviour of systems that have proved to disturb significantly the
mobile ecosystem. I believe the proposals on the table are sufficiently detailed and
clear that their analysis and subsequent resolutions can be carried out efficiently.
It is all the more relevant, as I am not at all in the clear as to the continuity of
the work in the area of content transformation within the W3C.


E.Casais

Received on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 12:04:12 UTC