W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2019

RE: DOM LS review

From: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:35:13 +0000
To: "tink@tink.uk" <tink@tink.uk>
CC: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, r12a <ishida@w3.org>, Fuqiao Xue <xfq@w3.org>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, "'member-i18n-core@w3.org'" <member-i18n-core@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <470e628925ec422f9f96711f18ffbf3c@EX13D08UWB002.ant.amazon.com>
Hello Léonie, (+HTML)

Sorry for the late reply.

Richard and I are confused about how to determine the status of W3C's snapshot. The github repo seems to redirect to WHATWG. Richard and I have been trying to figure out the schedule and where to look for stuff just now. I, at least, am easily baffled ;-). Could you let us know the schedule and, optionally, where to look for details/status? I realize that this is a New Thing and processes are in flux. I guess that more work is needed to regularize this.

Regarding the specific issue for DOM and HTML, I am working on a pull request to HTML this morning. If it is possible for the W3C snapshot to wait on our change to HTML, that would be ideal. If not, it's not fatal--there will be other snapshots in the future. I do think that this is actually an important fix, since we're finding that lots of specs depend on HTML's definition of string equality.

I also don't know the fate of our comment on DOM (https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/793), which is what started all this ruckus. Technically nothing is wrong with DOM, even if we would prefer that DOM change to use better jargon that "case sensitive". I think DOM doesn't need to wait and is not blocked on the HTML change. Could you let us know what the process is here and what dates we need to hit?

Thanks,

Addison

Addison Phillips
Sr. Principal SDE – I18N (Amazon)
Chair (W3C I18N WG)

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Léonie Watson [mailto:tink@tink.uk]
> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 1:14 AM
> To: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>; r12a <ishida@w3.org>; Fuqiao Xue
> <xfq@w3.org>; Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>; Phillips, Addison
> <addison@lab126.com>
> Subject: Re: DOM LS review
> 
> Richard or Addison,
> 
> Would one of you be able to reply to the thread on the HTML email list?
> If we need to call a halt to things it'd help us to know sooner rather than later
> - sorry, I know you're both flat out.
> 
> Léonie.
> 
> 
> On 30/11/2019 20:59, Philippe Le Hégaret wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 11/30/2019 2:07 PM, Léonie Watson wrote:
> >> I've just replied to the thread with the WG to ask if the issue is a
> >> blocker. Partly because it's something the WG needs to know, and
> >> partly because I'm still not sure of the answer after reading through
> >> this thread. Either way, Richard and Addison, sorry I missed it.
> >>
> >> Looking at the process as a whole, having almost been through it once
> >> at this point, there are certainly some things we need to figure out...
> >>
> >> The near total lack of a common process or platform for requesting
> >> review is exacerbated by the additional layer of abstraction we have
> >> in this particular case. For DOM and HTML I've sent emails that
> >> became Github issues, opened Github issues directly, sent emails to
> >> WG email lists (that sometimes went unanswered), and sent emails to
> >> individual team members.
> >>
> >> I think the I18n Github labelling process is the best of all the
> >> different processes currently in use, but it too bumps up against a
> >> logistical problem - that the review groups cannot add labels to
> >> issues filed in the WHATWG repos. The domino effect is that we (the
> >> HTML WG) has to ask the review groups to comment on the relevant
> >> review tracker issue in our repo, and that places an additional admin
> >> burden on review groups that already handling heaps of reviews at any
> >> given time.
> >>
> >> I know the team has been working towards making the I18n labelling
> >> system common to all review groups, but if we plan to keep going with
> >> this review draft to Rec thing, we're going to need to get that in
> >> place sooner rather than later.
> >
> > +1. Dom and I are working on it as far as we can. We keep bumping into
> > other priorities however so we can't dedicate full time to the project
> > by far. I have a sync-up meeting with Dom on Monday and we'll review
> > our status and how far we are.
> >
> >> We also have to think about what happens when there is a blocking
> >> issue. My assumption is that we'll simply decide not to publish from
> >> the given review draft, on the basis that a) the review draft cannot
> >> be updated after the fact, b) the process of negotiating a divergent
> >> specification would be horrible, and c) the fallout from doing that
> >> would have unhappy consequences.
> >
> > I think the best answer now is "it will depend on the issue". In my
> > thinking, if an horizontal group labels an issue with
> > "needs-resolution", this means that we need to dive into the issue,
> > weight the pros/cons, etc. For example, we recently allowed High
> > Resolution Time to Recommendation, despite the fact that the Privacy
> > folks were unhappy. We decided to keep the issue open, but recognized
> > it couldn't be addressed yet. Some really hard issues take years and
> > we just have to recognize it, without dropping them entirely.
> >
> >> Whether or not the review drafts start to act as milestones to the
> >> extent that the WHATWG start to regard them as "must fix by"
> >> deadlines is something only time will tell. Our plan at the moment is
> >> to take every other review draft to Rec, but perhaps we'll need to
> >> think about taking both review drafts of both specs to Rec each year.
> >
> > Philippe
> 
> --
> @LeonieWatson Carpe diem.
Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2019 17:35:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 10 December 2019 17:35:21 UTC