Re: Objection to publishing DOM Parsing and Serialization (was Re: CfC: publish LCWD of DOM Parsing and Serialization; deadline December 3)

On 12/6/13 7:40 AM, ext Ms2ger wrote:
> On 11/26/2013 08:43 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> Earlier today Travis closed the last open bug for DOM Parsing and
>> Serialization so this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a LCWD of
>> that spec, using the following ED as the basis:
>>
>> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/raw-file/tip/index.html>
>>
>> If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please send them to
>> public-webapps@w3.org by December 3 at the latest. Positive response is
>> preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement
>> with the proposal.
>
> In the first place I'd like to note that I'm unhappy with the way this 
> specification is being edited. 

If you mean the technical aspects, please do file bugs or send comments 
to public-webapps list.

> The way it is explicitly trying to contradict the DOM standard is 
> uncannily similar to the way DOM 3 Events did that (which, as you may 
> remember, led to the WG deciding against those requirements). 

Please file bugs or send comments to public-webapps.

> I don't think this specification has received sufficient review to 
> call it LC-ready, especially given that there has not been any 
> discussion of the changes before this CfC.

I view one of the main reasons for publishing a LCWD is to get wide review.

> I also wish to strongly object to the following change:
>
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/rev/8f29e6f6eea2
>
> which you made after the end of the CfC. I don't think it is 
> appropriate to make such a change without requesting review. The 
> change to the list of editors reverts bug 18935 [1], and incorrectly 
> suggests that I am involved with this fork. 

I'm really sorry about that. I just removed your name from the Editors 
list in the Draft LC 
<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/raw-file/default/LCWD-DOM-Parsing-20131205.html>.

> Even worse is the removal of the reference to the source 
> specification, given that you know that this is a contentious subject 
> in this WG.

Both Travis and I supported keeping that information in the boilerplate. 
The W3C Staff told us it must be removed before the LC could be 
published as at TR. (FYI, I filed a related Issue against the TR 
publication rules 
<https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/71>. I think the 
public-w3process list is an appropriate place to discuss the 
Consortium's publication rules.)

-ArtB

>
> I therefore object to the publication of this specification in the 
> current form.
>
> Ms2ger
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18935

Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 13:12:59 UTC