Re: Spec organizations and prioritization

Le mardi 20 mars 2012 à 03:59 -0700, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
> Your email assumes the current process stays in place and then provides  
> guidelines around that. Isn't the point of public-w3process to fix the  
> current process?

It is; I haven't got into what changes we should make to the W3C process
— I have another mail brewing on that. But I think there is still a lot
of ground for improvements even before we get a new process.

>  E.g. we tried something like what you described for  
> XMLHttpRequest, but it did not really go anywhere and ended up wasting a  
> lot of time by having to produce separate drafts for Level 1 and 2,  
> dealing with the various draft stages, etc.

I acknowledge that there is a cost in managing what I'm suggesting (and
I'll try to share some of my thoughts on that as well later on);
XMLHttpRequest seems certainly a good use case to look at. My
recollection is that XMLHttpRequest Level 1 bundled a number of
"features" that nobody was in a hurry to implement, which I think killed
it — that doesn't seem inconsistent with what I'm suggesting.

Is there a subset of XMLHttpRequest Level 1 that would have worked — I
think so, based on fact that every browser out there implements XHR, and
there seems to be pretty good interoperability. How difficult it would
be to design a spec around that subset, I can't tell; but I think that
subset could have become a Recommendation years ago.

Dom

Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 12:57:02 UTC