Re: Items not listed as "new" in the draft charter

Hi, Maciej-

+Nikunj

Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 3/29/10 10:51 PM):
>
> My only serious concern is the Programmable HTTP Caching and Serving
> entry - I think it's just factually incorrect.
>
> Here is the first Editor's Draft of WebSimpleDB:
>
> It does not include Programmable HTTP Caching and Serving. I just
> checked every single CVS revision of WebSimpleDatabase and WebSimpleDB,
> and none of them include it. (Some early revisions do *mention*
> DataCache, but as a separate spec they might interact with, not as part
> of WebSimpleDatabase itself).
>
> In fact, the first Editor's Draft of DataCache dates back to July 15,
> 2009:
> But WebSimpleDatabase was first committed on September 3. So it seems
> physically impossible for DataCache to be a split from IndexedDB, since
> it became a work item *before* IndexedDB did. Not only that, but
> DataCache is not even close to in scope for the previous Web Storage
> work item, while you've made a reasonable case that IndexedDB is similar
> in spirit, if not in technical details.

My understanding was that both Indexed DB and DataCache came from the 
BiTSY specification that Oracle submitted to the WebApps WG for 
consideration.  I've CCed Nikunj in order to clarify that.  If I 
misinterpreted that point, I'm happy to change it to something more 
accurate.

You're quite right that if they are unrelated in both origin and scope, 
we should clarify that on the wiki page.


>> Perhaps at this point, if you have specific changes you would like
>> made, it would be best to have your AC rep describe them in the normal
>> course of AC review, or to discuss them in the AC forum?
>
> You're welcome to take my feedback or leave it, but I really feel like
> the wiki page is making a factually inaccurate claim. If I am somehow
> mistaken in my analysis above, then my apologies, and I would appreciate
> if you would tell me where I went wrong.

>But I'm really trying to help you make this page accurate, not to jerk
> you around. Again, sorry if my feedback came off as overly negative.

No, your feedback wasn't overly negative, sorry if you came away with 
that impression; I understand you're just trying to do due diligence.

What I was really driving at was that, in order to avoid rathole 
discussions on the technical webapps list, it would probably be better 
to defer to the typical AC review process, since that is already underway.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs

Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2010 21:55:15 UTC