Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

Can we at least publish a new WD so people stop referring to the old
TR/?

-- Mounir

On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, at 20:36, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 9/25/14 9:26 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, at 21:52, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> >> On 9/25/14 6:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> >>> It effectively comes down to the fact that the specification describes
> >>> something, but Chrome implements it in another way per how I suggested
> >>> it should work (using "animation frame tasks").
> >> So this appears to be [Issue-40] and I think a one-line summary is the
> >> Editors consider this something that can be deferred to the next version
> >> and Anne considers it something that should be addressed before LC is
> >> published.
> >>
> >> Vis-a-vis this CfC, it seems the main options are:
> >>
> >> 1. Continue to work on this issue with the goal of getting broader
> >> consensus on the resolution
> >>
> >> 2. Publish the LC "as is"
> >>
> >> 3. Publish the LC "as is" but explicitly highlight this Issue and ask
> >> for Implementer/Developer feedback
> >>
> >> 4. Other options?
> >>
> >> Of course, I'd like to hear from others but I tend to think we should
> >> first try #1 (especially since Anne indicates the spec and at least one
> >> implementations are currently not aligned).
> >>
> >> Mounir, Marcos - would you please work with Anne on a mutually agreeable
> >> solution?
> > Last I checked, animation frame task was still underdefined. This is
> > what you can read in the WHATWG's fullscreen specification:
> > "Animation frame task is not really defined yet, including relative
> > order within that task, see bug 26440."
> >
> > In my opinion, if the spec is changed to use "animation frame task", it
> > would not change much in the current state of things.
> 
> Well, perhaps this would be true but the "devil's in the details" and 
> the details do matter (see below).
> 
> > Also, I'm not entirely sure why Anne is so loudly complaining about that
> > issue. The issue was not closed or waived but postponed until we can
> > properly hooked to the thing. LC doesn't freeze the specification and we
> > could definitely get this fixed before moving to CR.
> >
> > What I suggested to him on IRC and what I believe is the best approach
> > to reconcile the two worlds (WHATWG live standards and W3C snapshots) is
> > to take the current version of the spec to LC and update the ED to use
> > animation frame task and mark it as a WIP feature. I opened issue 75
> > last week as a reminder to do that.
> >
> > Arthur, what do you think of that solution?
> 
> We can certainly publish a LC with open issues (as was explicitly noted 
> in the original CfC [1]). However, I do want to emphasize that if any 
> "substantive" issue is filed after the LC is published, and the group 
> agrees to address any such issue(s), the group must publish another LC 
> before the spec can "move to CR". I mention this because LC<->LC loops 
> are time consuming for the group, implementers and developers and thus 
> should be avoided if possible. As such, it seems like pursuing #1 should 
> be the next step.
> 
> -Thanks, AB
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 2 October 2014 11:15:53 UTC