W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2015

Re: Normative references to Workers.

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 08:17:36 -0400
To: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Dan Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com>, Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55F95DE0.1020805@gmail.com>
On 9/16/15 4:47 AM, Mike West wrote:
> Note that this is an issue that's going to come up for a number of 
> WebAppSec specs 
> (see https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/#issue-a30f61b8 
> <https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/#issue-a30f61b8>, 
> for instance (and that spec also needs a few things that are missing 
> from W3C's HTML, but are present in WHATWG's)). What I hear so far on 
> this thread is that we should simply reference the WHATWG version of 
> those specs, which seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Yes, for the scenario you mention, I agree with you.

The grey area is when a feature is defined by both a W3C WG and WHATWG. 
Because of the consortium's Patent Policy, I suspect consensus among 
consortium members is to use the W3C spec for normative references. 
However, if the W3C spec is no longer actively maintained by a WG, then 
normatively referencing a WHATWG spec would (IMHO) be appropriate and I 
think the Normative Reference Policy [NRP] supports such a scenario.

In this specific case, I don't believe anyone has committed to actively 
maintain W3C Web Workers. As such, WebApps - do we have a volunteer? 
Please let us know (or send me private e-mail if you prefer).

-Thanks, AB

[NRP] <http://www.w3.org/2013/09/normative-references>


>
> -mike
>
> --
> Mike West <mkwst@google.com <mailto:mkwst@google.com>>, @mikewest
>
> Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, 
> Germany, Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der 
> Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine 
> Elizabeth Flores
> (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com 
> <mailto:mkwst@google.com>> wrote:
>
>     The "Upgrade Insecure Requests" specification[1] references the
>     WHATWG HTML spec for the
>     "set up a worker environment settings object" algorithm[2], as the
>     Web Workers Candidate Recommendation from May 2012[3]
>     substantially predates the entire concept of a "settings object",
>     and because the WHATWG is the group where work on Workers seems to
>     be being done.
>
>     This referential choice was flagged during a discussion of
>     transitioning the Upgrade spec to CR, where it was noted that the
>     Web Workers editor's draft from May 2014 does contain the
>     referenced concept[4].
>
>     It seems appropriate, then, to bring the question to this group:
>     does WebApps intend to update the Workers draft in TR? If so, is
>     there a path forward to aligning the Workers document with the
>     work that's happened over the last year and a half in WHATWG?
>     Alternatively, does WebApps intend to drop work on Workers in
>     favor of the WHATWG's document?
>
>     It would be helpful if we could get some clarity here. :)
>
>     Thanks!
>
>     [1]: https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/upgrade/
>     [2]:
>     https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/workers.html#set-up-a-worker-environment-settings-object
>     [3]: http://www.w3.org/TR/workers/
>     [4]: https://w3c.github.io/workers/
>
>     --
>     Mike West <mkwst@google.com <mailto:mkwst@google.com>>, @mikewest
>
>     Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München,
>     Germany, Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der
>     Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine
>     Elizabeth Flores
>     (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to
>     emails. Bleh.)
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2015 12:18:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:34 UTC