Re: Unchartered and Sinking

Hi Bjoern,

I'm responding to your email despite the fact that you didn't seem to
invite responses. (or if you were really interested in getting
responses, you should copy at least the chairs of the Working Group).

> Many years ago I figured, talking to W3M, pointing out that if the
> W3C can't even make sure Working Groups are properly chartered,
> which is a- bout as foundational as you can get, all failures on top
> of that should not come as a surprise.

I'll take responsibility for having a Group which still publishes after
its charter expires. The intent here is to extend the charter of the
Group to allow for maintenance and this simply didn't get a top of my
priority queue lately.

> If you have a look at PR-media-frags-20120315 and
> click through the links, you will find it has a section "Collected
> ABNF Syntax for HTTP Headers" that has no place in the
> specification, that does not even mark which references are
> normative

If you want to make a comment against the document, please you should
look at the status of the document: "The W3C membership and other
interested parties are invited to review the document and send comments
to public-media-fragment@w3.org mailing list". Do you really expect the
Group to look at www-archive for comments against their document?

> and which are not, the Working Group homepage doesn't even
> mention the PR,

an oversight.

> if you look at the charter you will see the group
> has expired in January 2011, if you look at the Activity homepage
> that it belongs to, you will find it expired in December 2011,

see above.

> it's years be- hind its original schedule,

I share your frustration here, but that doesn't necessarily undermined
the technology itself.

> if you look at www-tag
> archives you'll find phrases like "nothing short of laughable" used
> to refer to its work.

If folks on www-tag have comments against Media Fragments, I encourage
to make them to make them on public-media-fragments. Having said that,
why wait until the document because a Proposed Recommendation to make
those comments for a Group that has been created by in 2008? In
addition, this is a technology that is getting deployed, as proven by
the implementation report. I'm not sure what's laughable about trying to
address a very important use case identified back in December 2007.

Philippe

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 13:20:57 UTC