- From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:30:56 -0400
- To: "ext Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:30 AM, ext Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: > Fine for all except WebDatabase. > > I notice that its present ED is virtually the same as its FPWD (modulo > a new section on data sensitivity). There is no movement on any of the > thorny issues - locking granularity, relational model and SQL dialect. > > I am not sure what benefit is to be achieved from republishing > essentially the same draft as a new WD. It does have the opportunity > to mislead general public in thinking that progress is being made in > the spec, when that is not the case. > > As Ian says in the IRC log, no one agrees on the WebDatabase spec any > way so does it help to publish (essentially the same text as) a new > WD? The fact that a spec has open issues is not sufficient to block a WD from being published nor is the fact that there is not consensus on the entire contents of the document. I think the Process Document is clear on these points. A potential benefit of a new publication in /TR/ is wider review. I think this is particularly important before the TPAC meeting given about 1/3 of the registrants are not WG members and hence are unlikely to follow the changes in the Editor's Drafts. I think the recent publication of WebSimpleDB API shows this general area is still changing. Furthermore, I think a key point in the heads- up email that preceded this CfC ([1]) - that Web Database will not be ready for Last Call when the other specs are - does acknowledge that spec's contents does not have consensus in the WG. -Regards, Art Barstow [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/ 0313.html
Received on Friday, 23 October 2009 21:31:34 UTC