W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2015

Re: Web Storage Rec errata?

From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:02:51 +0000
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6D517924-8A04-4047-8F6F-28C1A3F890C4@intel.com>

> On 28 Apr 2015, at 15:46, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/21/15 5:39 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Is there a plan to publish an errata to sync the Web Storage Rec [1] with the latest? I counted 8 commits cherry picked into the Editor's Draft since Rec [2].
>> If no errata publication is planned, I'd expect the Rec to clearly indicate its status.
> Re the priority of this issue, is this mostly a "truth and beauty" process-type request or is this issue actually creating a problem(s)? (If the later, I would appreciate it, if you would please provide some additional context.)

It was creating problems. Our QA was confused which spec was the authoritative one, and wrote tests (additional ones, on top of the w-p-t tests) against the Rec spec. These tests failed since Blink is compliant with the latest, not the Rec. More context at: https://crosswalk-project.org/jira/browse/XWALK-3527

> The main thing blocking the publication of errata is a commitment from someone to actually do the work. I also think Ian's automatic push of commits from the WHATWG version of Web Storage to [2] was stopped a long time ago so there could be additional changes to be considered, and the totality of changes could include normative changes. Did you check for these later changes?

No, I just observed the ED has evolved since the Rec publication. There may be additional changes in the LS that haven't been picked up to the ED.

> If you, or anyone else, would like to help with this effort, that would be great. (If it would be helpful, we could create a new webstorage repo under github/w3c/, work on the errata in that repo and redirect the CVS-backed errata document to the new repo.)

I can ask if our QA would be interested in contributing.

> Personally, I think putting errata in a separate file - as opposed to putting changes directly into [1] - is mostly "make work" and fails the "principle of least surprise". However, I think the consortium's various processes preclude us from doing what I consider is "the right thing".

The best way would be to ensure TR reflects what is broadly implemented. If that does not work out due to process reasons, then a visible note at the top pointing to the authoritative spec would be the second best option. That failing, the errata.



>> [1]http://www.w3.org/TR/webstorage/
>> [2]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/webstorage/Overview.html
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2015 12:03:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:55 UTC