- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 07:32:00 -0400
- To: ext Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Jun/10/2011 3:05 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> > >> > My take on the comments is that most commentors prefer the spec to be >> > changed as PLH suggested in comment #5: >> > >> > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111#c5 >> > >> > Hixie - are you willing to change the spec accordingly? > What's the rush here? This is a minor issue, which I plan to address in > due course. It's not blocking implementors, it's not causing any > interoperability trouble, it's not stopping someone from writing a test > suite, why all the fuss? I would like all of the group's specs to keep moving forward on the Recommendation track. That is an expectation set forth in the group's charter and I don't think I have ever asked the group to "rush" this or any other spec. (On the contrary, I have supported longer review periods when requested and do not enforce the 90-day heartbeat publication policy "just to publish".) In this case, at least one other spec (which is planned for Proposed Recommendation in early August) has a normative dependency on Storage (and these functions in particular). Although the reference policy provides some flexibility, I think it is sub-optimal for later stage specs to depend on specs that are still changing. I would appreciate it, if you would please provide a date when you expect to have addressed this issue. (FYI, Cam is working on a schedule to move Web IDL to LC which is the only other dependency not yet at LC for the spec mentioned above.) -AB
Received on Saturday, 11 June 2011 11:32:25 UTC