Re: TPAC 2011 Web Performance WG 2011-11-01

On 11/8/11 7:38 PM, Jatinder Mann wrote:
> Considering the working group believes this specification is stable and
> upon completion of the one action item identified today, all issues
> raised against this specification will have been formally addressed,

There are at least two issues that I have raised on page visibility 
which haven't even been acknowledged, much less addressed.  Please do 
address them, as well as the issues I raised that have been acknowledged 
but likewise not addressed as far as I can tell.

> Further, as there are two interoperable implementations of this specification

Are there?  We don't even have a decent test suite that covers all the 
functionality last I checked; how could we possibly know whether we have 
interoperable implementations?

In particular, the issues I raised are not covered by the existing tests.

> the working group will like to take this specification to Proposed
> Recommendation by December 2011.**

I strongly object to this, given the open issues and lack of 
demonstrated interoperability.  Consider this a formal objection if 
desired, though given the existence of open issues that really shouldn't 
be needed.

I'd love to get this spec to PR, but I think that as currently written 
it has some issues, and I thing it would be good to actually address 
them before we proceed to PR.

-Boris

P.S. The general feeling of feedback being ignored so that specs can be 
rushed to Rec is not particularly pleasant.  I've been there before with 
SVG 1.1, and almost swore off participation in the W3C at the time, but 
at least they had the excuse of feeling like they were really late in 
getting the spec finalized.  Taking the extra week or two to actually 
address the feedback on page visibility isn't exactly going to kill us.

Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2011 02:20:04 UTC