On Jun/10/2011 3:05 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
> My take on the comments is that most commentors prefer the spec to be
> changed as PLH suggested in comment #5:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111#c5
>
> Hixie - are you willing to change the spec accordingly?
What's the rush here? This is a minor issue, which I plan to address in
due course. It's not blocking implementors, it's not causing any
interoperability trouble, it's not stopping someone from writing a test
suite, why all the fuss?
I would like all of the group's specs to keep moving forward on the
Recommendation track. That is an expectation set forth in the group's
charter and I don't think I have ever asked the group to "rush" this or
any other spec. (On the contrary, I have supported longer review periods
when requested and do not enforce the 90-day heartbeat publication
policy "just to publish".)
In this case, at least one other spec (which is planned for Proposed
Recommendation in early August) has a normative dependency on Storage
(and these functions in particular). Although the reference policy
provides some flexibility, I think it is sub-optimal for later stage
specs to depend on specs that are still changing.
I would appreciate it, if you would please provide a date when you
expect to have addressed this issue.
(FYI, Cam is working on a schedule to move Web IDL to LC which is the
only other dependency not yet at LC for the spec mentioned above.)
-AB
