On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:44:49 +0100, Adrian Bateman
<adria...@microsoft.com> wrote:
I don't think it's pointless for the reasons I gave. One of the valuable
aspects of the W3C is the traceability that comes from the archive in TR
space. We have implementations of XHR L1 that, while not 100%, are mostly
conforming deployed with customers.
Given the testsuite we have, that seems false, but okay.
I am happy to help with whatever work is needed to make this happen. I
haven't reviewed what errata have been added to the CR document in the
editor's draft. If there's nothing significant (and I'd hope there
wouldn't be to a CR document) I think we could just publish the CR
document with
appropriate editing as a Note and be done. It's the CR document I'd like
to not leave dangling.
There's been plenty of errata. In fact, the WG determined there was within
two weeks after publishing the Candidate Recommendation:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0448.html
And that was well over a year ago.
I only included drafts under "Previous Versions" that led up to the
current draft. E.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-XMLHttpRequest2-20100907/
was published just after the CR and offers a much better description of
the same features. http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-XMLHttpRequest2-20110816/
is even better, and http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
is best. We just reached CR because everyone was either tired of reviewing
or could spot no more mistakes at that point. Soon after though when some
tests were written, faults were uncovered. And I know we will uncover more
in the future.
So that is why I think it is pointless to bestow some kind of meaning on a
draft published well over a year ago. I also wish we'd have technical
discussion, as at that Offline Workshop, rather than a procedural
discussion whenever Art issues a CfC on one of the drafts I work on.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
