Re: REVERT REQUEST for "crossorigin" attribute

On Jun 23, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2011-06-23 19:31, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:24:01 +0200, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> I stand, loudly applaud and cheer Julian, then sit back down and shut up.
>>> He's said it - how does the WG plan to respond to this very real and
>>> honest statement? Are we in Last Call (first, second or 15th?), and does
>>> not that mean that the specification is "frozen" for wider review?
>> 
>> It's quite normal for editor's drafts of Last Call documents to change
>> in response to feedback. E.g. something very similar happened to the
>> Progress Events specification the WebApps WG is developing.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> At some point we need to draw a line between bug fixing, editorial improvements, and new features. This is a new feature. New features, as far as I can tell, require a new LC.
> 
> So can we please be frank about the fact that *this* LC really is a request for wider review, and that there really is no doubt that there will be another LC?

Here are some clarifications of the Process requirements. The W3C Process has these things to say:

"In practice, Last Call announcements generate comments that sometimes result in substantive changes to a document. A Working Groupshould not assume that it has finished its work by virtue of issuing a Last Call announcement."

"Starting with a Last Call review up to the transition to Proposed Recommendation, a Working Group must formally address any substantive review comment about a technical report and should do so in a timely manner."

"A technical report is returned to a Working Group for further work in either of the following situations:

* The Working Group makes substantive changes to the technical report at any time after a Last Call announcement and prior to Publication as a Recommendation, except when the changes involve the removal of features at risk identified in a Call for Implementations. In the case of substantive changes, the Working Group must republish the technical report as a Working Draft. …."

So, according to the W3C Process it is expected that substantive changes will be made in response to LC feedback, and also required that substantive changes made after an LC announcement require another Working Draft (and therefore another Last Call). The Process does not make a distinction between features and other substantive changes. And it does not allow us to ignore requests for substantive changes during the LC period.

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 18:16:45 UTC