I take the general point; CfCs should be tied to specific documents, not whatever happens to be the last thing I uploaded. I'll ensure that happens next time I poke a the list for a formal measurement of consensus.
That said, tip-of-tree has some nice improvements over Monday's document, based on feedback from both you and Brad. I'm happy to put up a snapshot from Monday, but I'd prefer to publish a snapshot from today.
Perhaps we can chat about what makes sense on Monday's call.-mike--
Mike West <firstname.lastname@example.org>Google+: https://mkw.st/+, Twitter: @mikewest, Cell: +49 162 10 255 91Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891Sitz der Gesellschaft: HamburgGeschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores(Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 5:54 PM, <email@example.com> wrote:
25.11.2014, 18:13, "John Kemp" <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> Hi Chaals,
> On 11/25/2014 06:54 AM, email@example.com wrote:
>> TL;DR: Please go ahead.
>> 24.11.2014, 23:20, "Mike West" <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Brad Hill <email@example.com
>>> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
>>> I've made a pull request to formalize the tone a bit. Pending that or
>>> similar updates by the editor, I support the publication of this
>>> Thank you! I accepted the pull, cleaned up a few bits, and
>>> republished: http://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/
>> It is really helpful in a call for consensus to have a URL to a
> FWIW, you can review the commits made, individually if you so desire, by
> going to https://github.com/w3c/webappsec/commits/master
Sure. I did that and in this case it seems fine to me. But given a change of a few dozen lines, it is not always clear what a "consensus" is if it is determined by statements made about different documents at different times - it's generally easier to agree on something if everyone is agreeing on the same thing. For people on a differenc
>> Consensus to publish "whatever was there when I looked" is
>> actually seriously weakened if you can change what is there (this is
>> security 101, right?).
> One thing that might improve the process is even for the spec editors to
> work in branches and issue Git pull requests back to master. The pull
> requests can be reviewed as a whole, or by looking at individual
> commits, prior to the reviewed pull request being merged to master.
It's simpler than that - in general, people can follow the entire history if they want to see each commit, or look at review drafts if they don't have that kind of time.
It's just a case of not mixing the two…
> - johnk
>> That said, I think the changes I saw (up until about 15 minutes before I
>> sent this mail) were helpful, and support publishing either way.
>>> Regarding the issue #2 you added, 'blob:' has an origin, as does
>>> 'data:'. What clarification do you think is necessary in the algorithm
>>> in order to resolve the issue?
>> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
>> email@example.com - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
firstname.lastname@example.org - - - Find more at http://yandex.com