- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 04:53:59 -0500
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Sunava Dutta <sunavad@windows.microsoft.com>, "public-webapi@w3.org" <public-webapi@w3.org>, Gideon Cohn <gidco@windows.microsoft.com>, Zhenbin Xu <zhenbinx@windows.microsoft.com>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Marc Silbey <marcsil@windows.microsoft.com>, Ahmed Kamel <Ahmed.Kamel@microsoft.com>
Hi, Folks- To be clear, I'm not critiquing the spec itself, or advocating any specific action. Rather, I'm trying to manage expectations and ensure that the various participants of this WG can work smoothly with one another. I'm acting purely as a Process wonk here. Sunava, as you see, there is considerable, and reasonable, incentive to make the XHR spec as detailed as possible, even where it may not match the IE implementation precisely. Maciej's request for more specific details on potential conflicts (in implementations or content) is appropriate, I think. I don't know if you are familiar with the W3C Recommendation Track [1], so briefly, you should know that LC (Last Call) is not the end of the process. It simply indicates that the specification is believed to have satisfied its technical requirements; it's not considered stable enough for implementation, and in practice, this is when most comments are made. Thus, I see little harm in advancing to LC, since you will still have an opportunity to submit additional technical comments. [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
Received on Friday, 8 February 2008 09:54:16 UTC