Re: [Bug 12111] New: spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not match implementation behavior

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Arthur Barstow <> wrote:
> 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:
>>> >  >
>>> >  >  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".)

Although we can all appreciate not being rushed to finish, I wonder if
forcing the 90 day requirement might work as a good way to short
circuit the W3C's process wrt putting Editor's drafts on /TR/. Might
also start discouraging certain implementers from cherry-picking dated
specs - which would be a really good thing. 3 months is actually an ok
time frame; and it's better than specs stagnating on /TR/ while all
the real work happens in the Editor's drafts.

I would support moving to a 3 month pub model or maybe even monthly
snapshots. Specially now that the W3C is allowing editors to put big
red warnings about specs being out of date:

I was previously blocked by the W3C pub team from putting one of these
big red banners into my specs, so I'm super happy to see the HTML spec
having one. This has set a fantastic precedence and hopefully this
practice will be adopted across the W3C.

> 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 don't think we have much option here. Prematurely slapping REC on
specs without having things thoroughly implemented and tested in the
wild would be a mistake, IMO.... we are seeing the consequences of
this ATM with Web Storage. Part of the natural evolution of things.

Marcos Caceres

Received on Saturday, 11 June 2011 20:43:11 UTC