- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 09:10:07 -0700
- To: ext Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 11/3/11 5:16 PM, ext Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 11/3/11 8:28 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:07:20 -0700, Julian Reschke >> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >>> Reminder: this was a past-LC change. I think I'm not asking too much >>> when I'm asking for a precise explanation of what the rational for >>> this change was. >> As I explained already, we moved processing requirements from the >> protocol to the API. > Round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows. :) > > It seems there are two topics here: > > 1. The procedural issue of moving the text from the protocol spec to the > API document. I have no opinion about this. The group discussed this on October 31 [1]. The gist of the agreement is that since the text that is now in the API spec used to be in the protocol spec, the totality of a review of the two specs is effectively the same. In this view, the change to the API spec is not substantive. > 2. The substantive issue of whether the text is correct. Julian asked > some questions about that, and I'd be curious to see replies (especially > because they are related to similar topics in HTML5). I think we need to continue to move forward and to acknowledge several implementations of the API spec have been deployed. As such, I tend to think we may have already passed the point of diminishing returns regarding minor tweaks to the spec and if there are bugs, in the spec, please file bugs and we can address them during CR. -AB [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html#item14
Received on Friday, 4 November 2011 16:11:29 UTC