Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:07:40 +0100, Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/03/2012 01:44 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>> Just a reminder: this group is a forum for discussion of technical
>> specifications, and follows the existing W3C process. Discussion of what
>> process *should* be is off topic here.
>
> I find it unfortunate that you try to cut off discussions relevant to  
> technical issues with our specifications by calling them "process"  
> discussions.

And we the chairs find it unfortunate that you continue to bombard the  
working group with discussions of and objections based on process, simply  
because there are technical considerations to what the process of this  
organisation should be.

This is a formal warning. The discussion is off topic, so please desist.

>>  From my understanding reasons for the practice include the following:
>>   - W3C aims to provide stable specifications that can be used as
>> references which won't change. This is a general underpinning of its
>> policy for specifications published as "TR" documents. Making a
>> normative reference to an unstable document obviously defeats this  
>> purpose.
>
> The argument that "TR" documents are in some way more "stable" than  
> other documents is simply fallacious. This has been discussed at length  
> here and in other venues;

By stable, we mean "are formally published as a stable reference". The  
technical issues this brings up, as I said in this thread, are known.

>  I won't go into it again.

Thank you. In this working group, please apply the same approach to other  
discussions of W3C process.

> Furthermore, I should point out that referencing the TR draft of WebIDL  
> would (if anybody tried to implement the TR spec and its TR references;  
> nobody does, of course) lead to a specification that is not  
> implementable. The WebIDL used in XHR is not valid according to the 19  
> April 2012 CR of WebIDL.

[...]
[chaals' example of currently unwritten requirements]
> I find this comparison, in particular, to be unhelpful and rather rude.

I'm sorry. If you'd like to discuss this further, in an appropriate forum,  
I will endeavour to find a comparison more to your taste. Otherwise,  
please accept my apologies.

> Nobody is suggesting using expletives in specifications. The only  
> parallel I can imagine with the current situation is that some people  
> seem offended by the existence of the WHATWG, and for some reason want  
> to make sure no W3C publication ever mentions it.

This is a misrepresentation of the facts, unless you have special  
knowledge of some person's individual motivation. In particular, both the  
chairs and many others have repeatedly expressed that credit should be  
given where credit is due, and in particular that appropriate references  
to WHAT-WG documents on the same topic are the sort of thing that should  
be in the spec, because that kind of reference is expected of "socially  
competent adults". This is a currently accepted consensus of the group,  
and I do not recall having seen any dissent.

It is also an extension of the discussion, and an inappropriate ascription  
of motives to others.

The question here is whether WHAT-WG documents are suitable as *normative  
references for W3C specifications*.

> I had hoped we had been able to come to a somewhat more mature
> relationship between this WG and the WHATWG after the recent
> discussions about attribution, but changes like this make me
> lose confidence in the goals of the W3C Team and the chairs of
> this WG on this matter.

That is unfortunate.

> I maintain my technical objections to the publication.

The chairs maintain that your objection is not technical.

In any event, we draw your attention to the sentence
[[[
Consensus is not a prerequisite for approval to publish; the Working Group  
MAY request publication of a Working Draft even if it is unstable and does  
not meet all Working Group requirements.
]]] - http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#first-wd

in section 7.4.1 of the process document. We note your objection, and  
resolve to publish the Working Draft.

for the chairs

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2012 21:46:33 UTC