W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > December 2010

[Bug 11326] A proposal to add web application access to home network A/V devices and content

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 20:20:35 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PSEst-0005X0-5Z@jessica.w3.org>

Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |ian@hixie.ch
         Resolution|                            |NEEDSINFO

--- Comment #2 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2010-12-13 20:20:34 UTC ---
Standardisation is the last step one takes to do this kind of thing.

First, you need to research the use cases and requirements by discussing the
issue with authors and implementors, on a public list (e.g.

Then you need to come up with a clear description of the problem that needs to
be solved, including any security issues. (For example, your description above
doesn't discuss the problem of whether a Comcast customer should have his
Comcast set-top box accessible to http://attacker.evil.example/, or whether
only comcast.com should have access to it.)

Then, you discuss your problem proposal with authors and implementors. Read the
responses. Listen to the feedback. Consider whether your ideas are good
solutions to the use cases and requirements put forward. Discussions here
should be done in public, e.g. on an archived public mailing list or documented
in blogs.

Once the problem is well-established, you get implementors to commit to
implementing the feature. If you can't get several implementors to implement
the feature, then get at least one user agent to implement it experimentally.
Experimental implementations should be publicly available.

Only once you have experimental implementations or a number of committed
implementors, as well as a clear problem description, is it appropriate to
consider the issue for standardisation. Even then, you will need to document
the experience found from any implementations, the use cases and requirements
that were found in the first step, the data that the design was based on, and
so forth, as well as demonstrate the importance of the problem, and demonstrate
that the solution is one that will be used correctly and widely enough for it
to solve the stated problem.

Typically at this step the original design gets thrown out and a significantly
better design is developed, informed by the previous research, new research,
and implementation and author experience with experimental implementations.
Sometimes, the idea is abandoned at this stage. Only after this is the spec

EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:

Status: Did Not Understand Request
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: See above. Before this can be added to the platform's
specifications, we need significantly more research and experimental
implementation experience.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 13 December 2010 20:20:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:35 UTC