W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2016

Re: Quick update on WebIDL "Level 1"

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 14:45:24 +0200
Cc: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3CCF4476-692D-4DB2-ADEA-EDDF66D38C5B@w3.org>
To: Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>

> On 10 Jul 2016, at 16:35, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com> wrote:
> 
> On July 9, 2016 at 6:24:56 AM, Domenic Denicola (d@domenic.me) wrote:
>> From: Travis Leithead [mailto:travis.leithead@microsoft.com]
>> 
>>> The purpose of the “Level 1” document is to serve as a stable reference for W3C specs that
>> link to WebIDL. It contains a subset of the WebIDL syntax that is considered stable (as
>> verified by interoperable tests). Implementations should not use the Level 1 document
>> as a guide, but instead track changes to the editors draft. We expect to follow-up Level
>> 1 with a Level 2 as additional editor’s draft syntax and behavior stabilizes, are implemented
>> as part of other specs, and shown to be interoperable.
>> 
>> Why is it acceptable for specs to reference a version of Web IDL that nobody should implement?
> 
> This is a totally valid question, but we've had this debate 1001
> times. Perhaps a better question is: how can we get patent protection
> (making this subset of WebIDL royalty free for society), but without
> harming the ecosystem by confusing implementers and developers by
> publishing on the "/TRash" space (as most of us now unfortunately
> referring to it).
> 
> We need a way to clearly indicate that, for a subset of documents,
> RECs on TR represent a royalty free set of ideas (as kindly and
> honorably granted by the W3C Membership) - and should only be referred
> to by patent lawyers and government officials. That it's for those
> groups should be stated and promoted proudly, not disparagingly. And,
> that implementers should be looking at the living document instead.
> The value of TR need not be diminished - in fact: it should be
> correctly used to published the documents that enshrine the royalty
> free status of particular specifications.

The goal of publishing this as a REC is not to have a final document nor to please only
the lawyers. The goal is to provide a document that contains the parts of the WebIDL
syntax that are implemented, and the associated implemented ES-binding, as a guide
for spec authors that are not following the main WebIDL spec evolutions (as not everybody 
has your knowledge of what is or is not usable in WebIDL).

The -1 spec explicitly states that people wanting to implement WebIDL are invited to read
the main WebIDL specification (that, ideally, should be automatically published as /TR/WebIDL ) because yes
WebIDL-1 is _not_ the WebIDL specification, just a frozen snapshot of what was implemented as the 
time of publication, not more than that, and bound to be replaced by a subsequent level later on.

> Perhaps we need a new space just for documents that represent and
> agree to set of royalty free ideas? (i..e, if it's a REC, it does into
> this new space - and gets clearly marked for the appropriate target
> audience, which is not implementers or developers - but patent lawyers
> and government officials)...
> 
> I think we've also had this debate 10001 times too... but we need to
> do something folks, as the division between the forks and the reality
> of how web specs are developed is hurting everyone :(
> 
> Kind regards,
> Marcos
> 

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

        ~~Yves
Received on Monday, 11 July 2016 12:45:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:15:03 UTC