On Jun/20/2011 6:37 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-06-20 13:58, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:54:12 +0200, Julian Reschke
<julian.resc...@gmx.de> wrote:
As recently discussed in the HTMLWG -- you can have Note that is
normative; it's just a signal that work on this has ended.
1) You do not get patent policy protection. 2) The work has not ended if
the feature is still part of the web platform.
Dunno about patents. But "work has ended" is supposed to mean that the
WG is done with it, AFAIU.
We could just publish it as a REC and say we're done with it, too.
Indeed, one disadvantage of moving Web Storage to a WG Note is that it
would _not_ have any patent commitments.
Regarding some of the process aspects of this proposal, although the
decision to publish WDs and LCWDs is effectively left to the WG, the
decision to publish further maturity levels requires other participants:
Candidate Recommendations require Director's approval and the decision
to publish a Recommendation is subject to feedback from the entire W3C
Membership (WebApps includes only 24 of the 325 W3C Members).
I mention this because off-list I heard a comment that suggested
Storage's mutex issue conflicts with a Recommendation's requirement that
"the ideas in the technical report are appropriate for widespread
deployment" [1]. Naturally, some will disagree with this view,
especially given the broad implementation of this spec.
Anyhow, only a small set of participants have responded to this RfC so
_I encourage others that have not responded to please submit their
feedback_.
-Thanks, AB
[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-publication
