- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 21:54:59 +0000
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: "Hill, Brad" <bhill@paypal-inc.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, "public-web-security@w3.org" <public-web-security@w3.org>, Daniel Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com>
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:12 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 5, 2011, at 8:57 , Marcos Caceres wrote: > >> Hi Brad, >> >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Hill, Brad <bhill@paypal-inc.com> wrote: >>> Well, my disagreement is not with its content; I think we should not move forward with this spec at all. >>> >>> I feel that the goals of this draft are either inconsistent with the basic architecture of the web, cannot be meaningfully accomplished by the proposed mechanism, or both, and I haven't seen any discussion of these concerns yet. >>> >> >> Publication will enable wider discussion - particularly wrt the issues >> you have raised. Not publishing it is tantamount to saying "I OBJECT >> TO PROGRESS!". If you are correct, more people will see it and the >> proposal will be shot down. Otherwise, other opinions will flourish >> that may sway your position (or a new perspective will emerge all >> together). In any case, calling for a spec not to be published, no >> matter how bad it is, is not the right way to do this. Publishing a >> spec is just a formality which can lead to discussion. >> > > I guess this raises two questions... > > a) I would obviously like to hear more about Marcos's objections, and I suppose that I will I guess you probably mean Brad, as I have no objections to publishing the specification or to its content... I only object to it being blocked from publication on the premise that it should not be published at all. > b) probably not in this forum, I'd be curious to know what the valid reasons might be to objecting to publication at all, if "I don't think this spec. should exist" is not one of them. > It is perfectly valid to have that position. And the editor has made an attempt to capture this position explicitly in the document. > If there are no valid grounds for objection, we wouldn't bother asking for consensus. Personally, I think publishing a WD indicates some consent that work in a given area should be considered and is relevant. > FWIW, I support the publication of this FPWD. As does Maciej, I see from a previous email. I suspect there are others, including the editor, that support the publication. That should be enough to meet quorum for publication, despite strong objections to publish at all. All objections are noted and part of the public record. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2011 21:55:56 UTC