Re: Response data should always be in a top-level "value" property.

On 04/10/16 17:23, Simon Stewart wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:03 PM, James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk
> <mailto:james@hoppipolla.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>     On 04/10/16 11:16, Simon Stewart wrote:
>
>         Alright. Since we seem to be in broad consensus, I've put up a
>         PR for
>         this: https://github.com/w3c/webdriver/pull/345
>         <https://github.com/w3c/webdriver/pull/345>
>
>
>     So far we have one positive and one negative response. That doesn't
>     seem like "broad consensus" unless there is some out of band
>     discussion that I'm unaware of.
>
>
> I'm confused. Who's the negative response from? You've said, and say so
> again in this email, that if this is something worth changing you won't
> object. That's more of an abstention :)

I am negative on this change at this time.

>     As I said, if this is really something that people think is worth
>     changing I won't object. But at this stage I really think reversing
>     an explicit years-old consensus decision about a fundamental part of
>     the protocol design should require actual "broad consensus" which
>     means getting explicit approval on the list from most implementors.
>     If there is no bar to revisiting old decisions we will never get done.
>
>
> We've also said that if we find problems when implementing the spec, we
> should resolve those issues in the spec. As someone implementing a local
> end, and more than one intermediary node, I've identified a problem, and
> we should fix that.

My concern is that an editor of the spec, who can be presumed to have a 
good understanding of its contents, is now revisiting an decision that 
was taken two years ago without anything that seems like new 
information. I struggle to see this issue as a bug fix based on 
implementation experience, rather as a late-expressed aesthetic preference.

Now, if the working group agrees that the previous consensus was wrong 
for whatever reason that's fine, let's make the change with all due 
haste. But I want people to take the idea that the spec is going to get 
finished seriously. That means not randomly reopening old discussions 
except for compelling technical reasons.

Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2016 17:01:28 UTC