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

Re: WebIDL Spec Status

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 06:52:31 -0400
Message-ID: <53ABFB6F.6080400@gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Xiaoqian Cindy Wu <xiaoqian@w3.org>
CC: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 6/25/14 11:58 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> In the case of WebIDL, my personal preference would be to not spend 
> precious effort on WebIDL 1 CR, but instead to:
>
> (1) publish WebIDL 1 CR as a WG Note without attempting to resolve 
> outstanding issues, other than by clearly annotating the existence of 
> those issues in the Note;
> (2) focus on moving WebIDL 2E (2nd edition) to FPWD and thence to LC, etc.
>
> If this process is followed, then it also may be useful to relabel 
> these two works a bit, e.g., by calling what is now WebIDL CR 
> something like "WebIDL Legacy" in a WG Note, and then using the 
> generic name WebIDL for what is now called WebIDL 2E. Just an idea to 
> consider.

Well, I admit I like this proposal, quite a lot actually, however, I 
don't know if it will satisfy the relevant process requirements (f.ex. 
[NormRef]). (Perhaps I should move this proposal to the public-w3process 
list ...)

Phillippe, Yves, Cindy - what are your thoughts on Glenn's proposal for v1?

Glenn - would your v1 WG Note proposal satisfy all of the WebIDL 
reference cases that concern you (I'm wondering in particular about 
specs from other SSOs that reference WebIDL)?

All - feedback on Glenn's proposal is certainly welcome.

-Thanks, AB

[NormRef] <http://www.w3.org/2013/09/normative-references>
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 10:52:55 UTC

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