Re: ISSUE-94 Change Proposal

On Mar 31, 2010, at 5:09 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ian Hickson <> wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> My personal opinion on this is to put out a request for someone to
>>> create a split, and then if/when someone creates a split we can  
>>> debate
>>> that. If Ian isn't willing to take such a split then we have the  
>>> normal
>>> decision process to follow.
>>> If no one does produce a split, well, then we're stuck with what  
>>> we've
>>> got for obvious reasons.
>> A split (though not the one Shelley suggested in the bug -- I haven't
>> looked at the change proposal to see if she changed what she was  
>> asking
>> for here) has been something that we've been looking for an editor  
>> for for
>> years. We even tried it briefly with Maciej's Window object spec, but
>> Maciej didn't have the time to maintain it (understandably -- it's  
>> a full
>> time job, IMHO).
>> I think it would make a lot of sense to split out the Window object,
>> browsing contexts, navigation, session history, and other features  
>> that
>> are the basis of any DOM-based processing Web browsers do (whether  
>> it be
>> HTML, SVG, or anything else).
>> I've said this before:
>> (top)
>> (#10)
> Ooh, maybe we can adopt as resolution to ISSUE-94 a WG decision that
> these things should be split out, and that this will happen as soon as
> there is an editor for the separate spec. But that if no such editor
> steps up by the time we reach CR then the split will not happen for
> this version of HTML.
> Would that be an acceptable solution to everyone?

The Chairs have not done a formal review of the Change Proposal. But  
my tentative view is that it lacks sufficient detail, as you pointed  
out. All comments below are preliminary and have not yet been checked  
with the other two Chairs.

To move on this issue, I think we'd need more than a willing editor. I  
think we'd need at least the following:
- An initial draft of the new separate document.
- A sufficiently detailed description of changes needed to HTML5 to  
properly kook .
- WG review of the previous two items.

In other words, we would need the material necessary for the WG to  
adopt a Change Proposal.

Let's say we handled it that way. This would be more or less  
equivalent to recording the issue as closed without prejudice. "Closed  
without prejudice" means we will not treat the issue as a blocker for  
Last Call, but will give it due consideration if anyone comes forward  
with a concrete proposal before CR.

I would be hesitant to record something more specific, such as that  
the WG will definitely agree to the split if certain conditions are  
met. That is because I do not think we should pre-commit the Working  
Group to future decisions. The one thing we know about the future is  
that it will be different than the present. Therefore, future  
decisions should be made when the future actually arrives, and we have  
the relevant information before us.


Received on Thursday, 1 April 2010 00:35:57 UTC