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

Re: WebIDL Spec Status

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:56:11 +0600
To: "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com>, Marcos <marcos@marcosc.com>, "Mounir Lamouri" <mounir@lamouri.fr>
Cc: "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.xhygnxncy3oazb@>
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:11:23 +0600, Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>  

> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, at 10:45, Glenn Adams wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Marcos <marcos@marcosc.com> wrote:
>> > 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.
> What's the benefits from having a REC based on v1 even if we know it is
> already obsolete?

People who can happily use the obsolete version, but need something  
stable, can refer to a well-known version they use, that others can also  

This gives far better, although incomplete, interoperability than if  
everyone who wants a stable reference more than something they have to  
invest in watching, and reacting to, continuously, refers to a random  


Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2014 10:56:50 UTC

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