W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: WebIDL Spec Status

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 18:45:43 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+eB3w+YKKHS5hb90DPHTqiMvtN4gDNiQGnBA=iLuJu_6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcos <marcos@marcosc.com>
Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Marcos <marcos@marcosc.com> wrote:

> On June 23, 2014 at 4:07:09 PM, Glenn Adams (glenn@skynav.com) wrote:
> > What is the plan, i.e., schedule timeline, for moving WebIDL to REC? We
> > have now a two year old CR that appears to be stuck and a 2nd Edition
> that
> > I'm not sure has made it to FPWD.
> >
> > Given the high degree of dependency from other specs and implementations
> on
> > this work, we really need to find a way to wrap up this work or at least
> > publish something reasonably stable.
> IMO, we should just concede that this document needs to be a Living
> Standard (tm).

I don't mind there being a "living standard" form of the document. But that
is not sufficient. There must be some final REC version of some
edition/snapshot of this work that provides a non-movable mark for
real-world compliance testing and device certification.

> Trying to move this through the W3C process is clearly not working.

There is no reason it can't or shouldn't.

> Even if we were able to take the V1 bits to Rec (a lot of which is now
> obsolete), the V2 stuff is already widely supported and heavily relied on
> by browser vendors. IMO, it's a waste of everyone's time to try to maintain
> multiple versions.

I agree that the V1 CR should be abandoned or replaced with a completed
snapshot of V2. Though it would be useful to ask a wider community about
the value of moving some flavor of V1 to REC.

> --
> Marcos Caceres
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2014 00:46:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:25 UTC