- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:22:54 +0100
- To: Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>
- Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mar 18, 2009, at 16:37 , Arve Bersvendsen wrote: > On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:19:34 +0100, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> > wrote: >> On Mar 18, 2009, at 15:38 , Marcos Caceres wrote: >>> It might be good to add an <option>s element on the <feature> >>> element to allow options to be set for features using name-value >>> pairs. For example: >>> >>> <feature name="http://clothing.com/api"> >>> <option name="fancy" value="pants"/> >>> <option name="color" value="green"/> >>> </feature> >> >> Do you have some examples that involve things that aren't pants? > > Does this suffice? > <feature name="url_describing_filesystem_api"> > <option name="music" value="read" /> > <option name="video" value="read write" /> > </feature> > > The intent would be to allow a widget UA to allow native UI for > selecting this, not dependent on for instance browseForDirectory(). I see a limited use case for the sort of example you propose, but I'm nevertheless going to push back against it. One reason is that it can already be described with features, to witness: <feature name="url_describing_filesystem_api/music/read"/> <feature name="url_describing_filesystem_api/video/read"/> <feature name="url_describing_filesystem_api/video/write"/> (and it's even one line shorter, without even having had to try). But one more important objections is that we're in Last Call. During Last Call, the only changes that should be made are bug fixes, and only in the very rare cases when something demonstrably really, really important can't happen feature changes. I don't think that this suggestion, irrespective of its potential merit, falls in either category. Some people on the WG might believe that document maturity on the Rec track doesn't really matter, or at least that LC is just like another WD. It does, and it's not. If your friends are waiting for you at a bar and you're on the phone telling them "yeah, I really am just around the corner, I'm coming right now!", and you do that several times in a row until the beer they'd bought for you is out of bubbles and your Gammel Dansk has all but evaporated, they're not going to be happy, and they won't take you seriously, and they won't buy you drinks next time. And that pretty girl/boy/alien will probably have left home, crying. It's the same here. People outside the WG, and outside the W3C, have made plans based on when this spec was announced to be shipping. Every time the spec is pushed into another LC — which is required for new features and any major normative change — you risk breaking those plans. You can't ask for people to wait for you to finish and at the same time default on your word every time you say you're just around the corner. This is not just about synchronising with Bondi (even though that's part of the issue), it's about the fact that vendors are going to start implementing what's there pretty soon in order to ship on time, whether the spec is ready or not. And if the spec isn't ready enough, then it won't be about implementing a potential Bondi snapshot of a WD, it'll just be about going full proprietary. Yes I could make a case against them for that, but no it's not going to make any difference. And even if it would, all the time we spend delaying the spec and through that encouraging — whether we want it or not — non- interoperable and proprietary solutions is time that keeps the door open for AIR Mobile and Mobile Silverlight to grab the market. If you think I'm exaggerating, consider this example: when SVG first went into CR, Flash didn't even have scripting. Then, things got a little bogged down. I'm not saying that this group hasn't done amazing work, and I'm not picking on you Arve or Marcos, I'm just trying to encourage some focus and push away things that can go in 1.1 if we need them. I'm pretty sure everyone here has either ranted about W3C being slow or over- optimistic in its schedules, or at the very least nodded when someone else was doing that. Well, for those of us who are on the WG or otherwise participating, that's really up to us — not W3C management, or staff, or even the chairs, or our bearded CSOs. As the philosophers of days ancient so well taught us, with great power comes great responsibility. So let us all bask in the glorious light of the power bestowed upon us as Participants and (gasp!) Editors for a minute, and then pull the keyboard out and act like it. Rant now officially over. Can we agree on a) being feature-frozen, and b) a list of blockers that absolutely must be exterminated before CR that we can then club to death with loaded Uzis? -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 22:23:32 UTC