W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: "W3C" XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:18:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei8gUHTygvEDHDY-g+tPUAw+hxO-7n8Go4OvtgZH01XJ0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
For specs that are passed FPWD, and thus where consensus to publish there
has been reached, this sounds like a good idea.

Though it might also be good to enable anyone to raise concerns about a
spec such that automatic WDs aren't published until concensus is reached
again.

/ Jonas
On Jan 27, 2014 7:49 AM, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

> Hi Art,
> I'm wondering if we can change the group's work mode to not requiring CFCs
> for ordinary working drafts? Unless I'm not getting something, they seem to
> add an unnecessary delay to getting stuff published.
>
> Kind regards,
> Marcos
>
> --
> Marcos Caceres
>
>
> On Monday, January 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Jungkee Song wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com(mailto:
> art.barstow@nokia.com)> wrote:
> > > On 1/23/14 8:48 PM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:
> > > > I understand your concern. Indeed, we editors should have made it
> clearer providing updates on the status and more importantly a new TR.
> > > >
> > > > The goal of the snapshot version of the spec is clear. It aims to
> standardize all widely implemented parts of the spec that are compatibly
> supported across major implementations in a *timely* manner. Hence the
> number one to-do is to enhance the pass ratio of the test suite [1] by
> interacting with the implementors.
> > > >
> > > > We'd planned to publish LC with the Level 1 spec [2] in a near-term
> after the last TPAC but the changing publication policy recommends for us
> to take more conservative approach in publishing LC.
> > > >
> > > > That said, it seems necessary for us to publish a WD with [2] for
> now before we'll get ready with the test results good enough for publishing
> LC.
> > > >
> > > > Any comments would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the update Jungkee!
> > >
> > > I think your plan (to publish a WD now that will replace the 2012 WD
> and to continue to work toward a LC that is broadly and compatibly
> implemented) is good. Please let me know when you want me to start a CfC
> for the WD.
> >
> > We editors agreed with requesting a CfC to publish [2] as a WD. I'll
> request it as soon as I'm ready with a WD-ready version.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jungkee
> >
> >
> > > -Thanks, Art
> > >
> > >
> > > > [1] http://jungkees.github.io/XMLHttpRequest-test/
> > > > [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/xhr-1/Overview.html
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jungkee Song
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 27 January 2014 17:19:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:21 UTC