- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:30:11 +0100
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Nov 25, 2009, at 21:32 , Arthur Barstow wrote: > During the November 19 widget call [Nov-19], we spent considerable time discussing how to handle requests for new requirements/features but did not reach consensus. There a couple of options to address new requirements and features and we should continue to discuss the options. Actually I think that we had a viable surface area of consensus. We agreed that Suresh was interested in fleshing out a proposal to have different features be made accessible to different sources based on w:access/w:feature, and that if the WG liked the output from Suresh that it will form the basis either for WARP 1.1 (or 2.0, or whatever we want to call it) or for an extension specification (whichever makes most sense, but that has no impact on WARP itself). We also agreed that UPnP was out of scope and would get specified in its own WARP4U extension spec by Marcin. What we did not reach consensus on was whether WARP should have an informative laundry list of arbitrary things that are not in its scope, and might refer to unpublished or unwritten specifications addressing parts of that laundry list. In effect it's silly to delay based on informative text, so if push comes to shove I'll add a laundry list of a bunch of stuff that is excluded from WARP's scope. I'll note that this should not be taken as an endorsement of the process of adding useless information to technical report, just a choice of battles to prevent stalling on silly issues. We can also always remove informative text later on. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Monday, 30 November 2009 18:30:43 UTC