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

[Bug 7386] SharedWorkerGlobalScope

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:06:01 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1NffIX-0000Qq-Lz@wiggum.w3.org>

--- Comment #11 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2010-02-11 20:06:01 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> 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:
>    http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html
> Status: Rejected
> Change Description: actually ended up adding a reference
> Rationale: 
> I tried to do this, but I really couldn't find a way to do it that:
> (a) didn't introduce tautologies (like "A cache host is an object that hosts a
> cache" or something equally inane).
> (b) didn't say anything technically wrong (like the proposed "A cache host is
> the object that maintains an association to an ApplicationCache"  it's no the
> case that all the objects that maintain an association to an ApplicationCache
> are cache hosts).
> (c) didn't make the text make no sense in complete.html (e.g. talking about
> "other specifications" to mean another section in complete.html).
> (d) didn't introduce gratuitous differences between WHATWG and W3C versions.
> Web Workers and HTML5 really are just one spec, they're just split for W3C
> process reasons. This becomes very visible when trying to make the relationship
> one-way only like this.
> While doing all this I found another place that referenced Web Workers from
> HTML5, so I added another reference.
> If anyone has any suggestion for how to do this, please feel free to suggest
> what the text should be. I do see the argument that suggests that all the
> worker-related appcache stuff should be in the workers section and the appcache
> section should only talk about Documents, but I just can't really make it work
> that well in practice.

I wasn't asking that the references to SharedWorkerGlobalScope be removed. What
I was asking for was to provide a link to where the item is defined, which you
did, but also to provide enough of a description/definition to go with the
link, so that people understand what this thing is.

A link to another specification is only useful if people understand why this
link is given, and what they can expect to find at the other end. 

I have other things going on at the moment, but will attempt to provide
suggested text, when I post some other change proposals. In the meantime, I'll
just leave this bug in its current state. I don't think it needs to be upscaled
to an issue, not until I take a shot at providing alternative text. WHen I do
provide suggested text, I'll re-open this bug. 

If the alternative text is rejected then yeah, we'll need to upscale this bug
at the time.

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 Thursday, 11 February 2010 20:06:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:11 UTC