- From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 08:52:59 -0800
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, 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>, Marc Silbey <marcsil@windows.microsoft.com>, Ahmed Kamel <Ahmed.Kamel@microsoft.com>
I think there are a few misconceptions about Sunava's feedback. 1) In NO WAY do we want the specification to be less detailed. MORE detailed, if anything. 2) In fact, on that note, we're interested to see the test suite be linked, normatively if necessary. 3) we are not intending to block last call, and we understand the Process. Sunava had promised to send comments, and has done so. We would still like to see these comments addressed in the specification, and not simply dismissed; whether that is prior to or post LC is not, I think, that important. -----Original Message----- From: Doug Schepers [mailto:schepers@w3.org] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 1:54 AM To: Maciej Stachowiak Cc: Anne van Kesteren; Sunava Dutta; public-webapi@w3.org; Gideon Cohn; Zhenbin Xu; Chris Wilson; Marc Silbey; Ahmed Kamel Subject: Re: IE Team's Feedback on the XHR Draft 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 16:53:17 UTC