W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion

From: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:43:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKA+Axny15xS+mVrJv3fRO06kdRDSRiMsXH11n8+KMjo0wBu6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan@mozilla.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, W3C WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
> It seems to me, that by virtue of using public-webapps, it does give WebApps
> WG a role e.g. to at least comment on the CG's editing spec. [Whether such a
> role is "official" or not is probably just "splitting hairs".]

I absolutely would like comments from everyone who's interested,
whether individuals or organizations or Working Groups.  That applies
no more to the WebApps WG than anyone else, though.  I'm more
interested in what the comments are than where they come from.

> And speaking of the spec, would you please clarify which spec is in scope
> for the CG:
> http://aryeh.name/spec/editing/editing.html
> or:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/editing/

They're the same.  As you can see, the aryeh.name spec links to
dvcs.w3.org as its primary version control.  The script I use to
update the aryeh.name spec
(https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/editing/file/ee2791b98b92/publish) also pushes
the updates from my local git repository to dvcs.w3.org.

Actually, I just realized you can view the same spec here:
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/editing/raw-file/tip/editing.html>.  DOM4 uses
a dvcs.w3.org URL for its latest Editor's Draft, so I suppose I might
as well too.  I've changed the aryeh.name URLs to redirect to
dvcs.w3.org, and updated the spec to link to those.  There are no
longer any aryeh.name URLs left in the spec except my e-mail address.

> Would you also please explain what you mean by your hoping it will *not* be
> necessary for the editing spec to move to the W3C's Recommendation track
> (f.ex. why do you feel this way)?

I've explained myself at some length elsewhere, such as the first
comment by me here:


I later explained why I think Community Groups address a lot of the
issues I see with the standard W3C procedures:


I hope that the Community Group initiative will be successful enough
that it isn't perceived as necessary to move specs developed there to
traditional W3C Working Groups.  I'd like to see CGs become an
alternative to WGs, not just a gateway to them.

> Is there consensus within the CG to not move the spec to the REC track?

The spec is in the public domain and anyone can theoretically submit
it to the REC track, so consensus isn't an issue either way.  However,
I hope others will not try to undermine the new Community Group
process by taking its specs away until we've had a chance to give it a
fair try.  Perhaps experience will wind up demonstrating that the
Process still serves a useful purpose for specs like HTML Editing
APIs, but we won't know unless we try.
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2011 16:44:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:24 UTC