Re: WebIDL Spec Status

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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)?
>

The reference cases I'm working with (primarily DLNA specs) dereference
WebIDL via the HTML5 references list, which in turn, refers to WebIDL 2E.
So at this point, I have no issue with the existing CR being moved to a WG
Note.

Given the limited editorial resources, I prefer effort going into
progressing 2E.


>
> All - feedback on Glenn's proposal is certainly welcome.
>
> -Thanks, AB
>
> [NormRef] <http://www.w3.org/2013/09/normative-references>
>
>
>