- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 18:51:19 +0100
- To: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
> On 02 Dec 2015, at 17:30, Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me> wrote:
>
> From: Yves Lafon [mailto:ylafon@w3.org]
>
>
>> Note that the goal is not to produce a document to be used for
>> implementors of WebIDL (who should follow the edcopy), but a reference of
>> what is implemented at the time of its publication for writers of other
>> specifications (and the SoTD has a paragraph about this, it may be clearer or
>> more visible)
>
> Given this as the goal, I object to the publication. We should not encourage other specifications to reference an unimplementable and unimplemented specification. And we should not publish such specifications in the first place.
Well, when the goal is to document what is currently implemented. That seems to go against your "unimplementable and unimplemented” argument. The ‘latest version’ is what is not implemented and can’t be as there are unspecified things.
> I would rather see more resources spent on the current revision of Web IDL, and abandon v1 entirely as a historical artifact that serves no value.
>
> I believe I raised these concerns last time a call for publication of Web IDL level 1 was issued, with if I recall no response.
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2015 17:51:27 UTC