W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2014

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

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 11:44:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei8UY6+Yr8VafBEScnwo1aHXQpSr6q9v+o7L=vAjPW2LGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
Cc: Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Though I also agree with Mounir. Changing the event source doesn't
seem like a change that's substantial enough that we'd need to go back
to WD/LCWD.

Does any implementation actually feel that it would be?

/ Jonas

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr> wrote:
> 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 18:45:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:31 UTC