Re: WebIDL Spec Status

On Jun 26, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014, Glenn Adams wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Compraing implementations to anything but the very latest draft is not 
>>> only a waste of time, it's actively harmful to interoperability. At no 
>>> point should any implementor even remotely consider making a change 
>>> from implementing what is currently specified to what was previously 
>>> specified, that would literally be going backwards.
>> 
>> That sounds reasonable, but its not always true (an exception to every 
>> rule, eh). For example, in order to ship a device that must satisfy 
>> compliance testing to be certified, e.g., to be granted a branding 
>> label, to satisfy a government mandate, etc., it may be necessary to 
>> implement and ship support for an earlier version.
> 
> For pointless certification purposes, you can use any random revision of 
> the spec -- just say what the revision number is and use that (and 
> honestly, who cares how well you implement that version -- it's not like 
> the testing process is going to be thorough). Don't ship that, though. 

Snapshotting a specification is valuable for implementors as well.  If I refer to a living standard page, then fragment ID or terminology used in the specification may change in 5-10 years, and I would have no idea what kind of specification the person committed a given code change was following.

It's also valuable to ensure the self consistency of such a snapshot since editors often "refactor" specifications to better structure, etc... but that tends to introduce dangling definitions or references and other inconsistencies in them.

I do agree that the current long process/practice to move a specification to REC is harmful.  We should streamline it as much as possible.

- R. Niwa

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 16:11:46 UTC