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

Re: ISSUE-94 Change Proposal

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:56:31 -0600
Message-ID: <o2q643cc0271003311556r7ab5e282t6ddef3fd187db9a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>> I support the idea of this proposal. To split browsing contexts,
>>> Window, History, and similar concepts out into a separate
>>> specification.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately this proposal is IMHO not detailed enough to produce
>>> such a split. Much less to review if the split fulfills its intended
>>> goals of producing a simpler HTML5 specification.
>>>
>>> For example, how should HTMLDocument.open() be specified given that
>>> it's a HTML specific feature, but heavily intertwined with browsing
>>> contexts? How do iframes interact with History.back()?
>>>
>>> I'd love to see someone take the original HTML5 document and produce
>>> an actual split, this way we can debate the details of that split. I'd
>>> imagine that if someone did this I would likely vote for such a change
>>> proposal.
>>>
>>> If I were Ian and the current change proposal were approved, I would
>>> have no idea what to do.
>>>
>>
>> That's a good point, and I'm aware that an actual two documents would
>> have been best, but this was one I just didn't have time for.
>
> I suspect this is true for all of us, which is the reason it hasn't
> happened yet.
>
>> If the co-chairs feel this one isn't detailed enough, I'm afraid it's
>> going to just have to die. And that's unfortunate, for the browser
>> companies, and the spec.
>
> Indeed, the realities of resource constraints can suck.
>
> 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.
>

That's a good suggestion for going forward. As I mentioned in the
change proposal, this one really isn't contentious -- it's the amount
of work.

I still wish that there could be a task group assigned this. I think
we've become too dependent on one or two people doing all of the work,
and the rest of us making suggestions after the fact.

But that is way beyond the scope of a change proposal. And doesn't
follow the philosophy of the group, either.

> If no one does produce a split, well, then we're stuck with what we've
> got for obvious reasons.
>

If I can find a way to make it work, I promise this will be one of my
first tasks. I just hate to see it go, because we're going to regret
it if we do.

Ah well.

> / Jonas
>

Shelley
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 22:57:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:00 UTC