Re: Proposition to change the prefixing policy

I think the WG's bar for CR is quite a bit higher than my (admittedly vague) "roughly interoperable" condition. Even when rough interoperabilty is established, arguments like the following might delay taking even a tiny split-off spec to CR, and in some cases they are even valid:

- UAs might match but the spec doesn't match what they do so it needs to be rewritten.
- UAs might match but we want to change the spec syntax entirely, because what is implemented so far is not as elegant as it could be.
- We need some tests first.
- Some people objected to going to LC because their pet issue is not yet addressed.
- We need a longer LC period because groups X, Y and Z may want to review.
- We have to address all the LC comments before we can go to CR.
- Splitting off this one property makes no sense because it's too tightly integrated with another property.
- We don't have enough editing resources to maintain yet another split off spec.

In consideration of such factors, I think your proposal would in practice give an unprefixing timeline that is much closer to the current policy than to the other alternatives suggested on this thread.

Regards,
Maciej

On May 6, 2012, at 6:21 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've been avoiding this thread while I was on vacation, but I finally
> read through it.
> 
> I agree with the thrust of Florian's suggestion - we should be finding
> some earlier point to unprefix.  I also agree with some of the
> criticisms - *starting* with an unprefixed version is too early, and
> negates much of the benefit of using prefixes to cordon off
> experimental usage.
> 
> Florian later suggested unprefixing at some point in the WD cycle,
> when the WG agrees to it.  Maciej proposed that we unprefix when we
> have two roughly-interoperable implementations.  Both of these are
> approximately where I want to see this land, but both suffer from some
> ambiguity that I don't think is necessary.
> 
> Tantek's proposal, which he brought to the group late in the last
> Paris FtF, hits approximately the same sweet spot but with less
> ambiguity - it's nearly a mechanical process.  As a reminder, his
> proposal is that, at the moment anyone can prove two interop
> implementations of a feature with a WG-approved testsuite, we cut that
> feature into an LC->CR draft.  In effect, we have a constantly-moving
> ED, with snapshots of testably-interop features calved off as
> necessary.
> 
> This is approximately what our process is *already* supposed to be,
> but we never actually get very close to this because we're reluctant
> to split apart specs or put "small" specs through the LC process.
> Tantek's proposal just cuts away our excuses and makes it an
> imperative.
> 
> I think that Florian's proposal matches what a lot of us want to see,
> and that Tantek's proposal accomplishes Florian's goals with the least
> ambiguity (and thus greatest chance of success) of all the variants
> I've heard so far.  We should adopt it.
> 
> ~TJ
>

Received on Sunday, 6 May 2012 19:28:55 UTC