Re: WebIDL Spec Status

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] <>

Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 10:52:55 UTC