Re: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Marcin Hanclik marcin.hanc...@access-company.com wrote: Hi Art, Robin, Marcos, Thanks for your comments. Here is the consolidated answer. Just to clarify: I do not think that we should be so strict about the dates regarding the arrival of the comments. If we were not strict, we would never publish. We are strict because we get consensus on a draft from either 1) the WG or 2) in the case of CR+, the Director and the Chairs. The flexibility is already present for many of the WebApps WG's specifications. Only for typos, simple clarifications, and all non-normative text. Art, being responsible for how this working group functions and adheres to the W3C Process, makes sure of that. You once accused us of being a kindergarten, and now you are asking us to willfully violate the process? I believe all of the comments submitted during the LC#1 comment period (that ended 20-Sept-2009) were addressed. Since you indicate otherwise, please clearly identify any comment submitted during the LC comment period that was _not_ addressed. Yes, as far as I can tell all the comments provided in the LC#1 period were already addressed. It is my oversight to name the comments that arrived later as received within LC#1 period. I have just assumed that all comments - also those received after LC period - should be addressed. Of course all emails will be addressed; we are not monsters. We address all emails that come in and never ignore an email. However, we are under no obligation to include those emails as part of the LC process. As indicated earlier in this mail thread, the comments that in my opinion need technical answers stem from the mail thread [1]. They arrived after LC#1. Than they shall be addressed in the period between LC1 and LC2. But will be part of neither unless they require a substantive change in LC2. Technically the comments in [1] are about the flexibility of expressing the URIs by means of a pattern. [2] from Scott Wilson backs it up, although we seem to agree that regular expression is better name for the syntax. [3] from Stephen Jolly is about local network. [4] from Phil Archer about using POWDER. [5] from Bryan Sullivan about semantics of the special value U+002A ASTERISK (*). Some other comments started in [5] were already addressed. From the comments [1]-[5] I derive that the general use case that people are asking for from WARP is the ability to flexibly (by some pattern / regexp) define the value of @origin attribute that later is to be applied to define some kind of local or private network, either by means of domain names (addressed in the current WARP based on the @subdomains attribute) or by IP addresses (not possible to realize efficiently based on the current WARP). Given the above use case, I think that the special value local could address it and together with @subdomains attribute covers all but one ([5]) from the above comments. In the light of LC#2 it seems that the my comments to CfC could be summarized as: Do the comments that arrived after the LC#1 deadline have to be repeated by their authors to get into LC#2 review (I assume not, but it is unclear to me). Comments should be addressed and we should leave it to the editor and chair to decide which comments become part of the Disposition of Comments. Regardless, all comments will be addressed. Robin has always addressed every comment that has come in. If not, then I assume they will be addressed in the LC#2 and I should not worry. Yes, you can rest easy:) Additionally, I may be (again) wrong, but I assume that LC#2 should start once the group internally is aligned with regard to the already received comments. We have already aligned. Hence this being public call for consensus. You still have not presented any valid reasons to progress LC#1 to LC#2. http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access-upnp/ This draft does not meet my expectations and we will _not_ publish a document that includes a copy of all of the WARP spec. It would be helpful to have a clear definition of at least: the problem statement, use case(s), requirement(s), security considerations, proposed syntax and semantics, UA processing model. I slightly improved this document: added processing model and security considerations. It will be potentially extremely short. The delta spec will come shortly (depending also on further discussion on the topics in this mail thread, maybe it could be addressed during LC#2?) and will contain the diff between WARP and WARP4U. Maybe... I recommend that you formally re-raise the local pattern issues once we publish LC#2 or continue working on your new spec (which Opera supports, btw)... but please, remove all duplicate text and keep is short, as Robin suggested. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
RE: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December
Hi Marcos, You once accused us of being a kindergarten, and now you are asking us to willfully violate the process? Well :), I do not want to remember those multi-context discussions. We have already aligned. Thanks. Maybe... I recommend that you formally re-raise the local pattern issues once we publish LC#2 or continue working on your new spec (which Opera supports, btw)... but please, remove all duplicate text and keep is short, as Robin suggested. Ok, I will re-raise in LC#2 or discuss how to bring them back a kind of automatically. The delta spec will be short. Thanks, Marcin Marcin Hanclik ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH Tel: +49-208-8290-6452 | Fax: +49-208-8290-6465 Mobile: +49-163-8290-646 E-Mail: marcin.hanc...@access-company.com -Original Message- From: marcosscace...@gmail.com [mailto:marcosscace...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Marcos Caceres Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 1:23 PM To: Marcin Hanclik Cc: Arthur Barstow; Robin Berjon; public-webapps Subject: Re: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Marcin Hanclik marcin.hanc...@access-company.com wrote: Hi Art, Robin, Marcos, Thanks for your comments. Here is the consolidated answer. Just to clarify: I do not think that we should be so strict about the dates regarding the arrival of the comments. If we were not strict, we would never publish. We are strict because we get consensus on a draft from either 1) the WG or 2) in the case of CR+, the Director and the Chairs. The flexibility is already present for many of the WebApps WG's specifications. Only for typos, simple clarifications, and all non-normative text. Art, being responsible for how this working group functions and adheres to the W3C Process, makes sure of that. You once accused us of being a kindergarten, and now you are asking us to willfully violate the process? I believe all of the comments submitted during the LC#1 comment period (that ended 20-Sept-2009) were addressed. Since you indicate otherwise, please clearly identify any comment submitted during the LC comment period that was _not_ addressed. Yes, as far as I can tell all the comments provided in the LC#1 period were already addressed. It is my oversight to name the comments that arrived later as received within LC#1 period. I have just assumed that all comments - also those received after LC period - should be addressed. Of course all emails will be addressed; we are not monsters. We address all emails that come in and never ignore an email. However, we are under no obligation to include those emails as part of the LC process. As indicated earlier in this mail thread, the comments that in my opinion need technical answers stem from the mail thread [1]. They arrived after LC#1. Than they shall be addressed in the period between LC1 and LC2. But will be part of neither unless they require a substantive change in LC2. Technically the comments in [1] are about the flexibility of expressing the URIs by means of a pattern. [2] from Scott Wilson backs it up, although we seem to agree that regular expression is better name for the syntax. [3] from Stephen Jolly is about local network. [4] from Phil Archer about using POWDER. [5] from Bryan Sullivan about semantics of the special value U+002A ASTERISK (*). Some other comments started in [5] were already addressed. From the comments [1]-[5] I derive that the general use case that people are asking for from WARP is the ability to flexibly (by some pattern / regexp) define the value of @origin attribute that later is to be applied to define some kind of local or private network, either by means of domain names (addressed in the current WARP based on the @subdomains attribute) or by IP addresses (not possible to realize efficiently based on the current WARP). Given the above use case, I think that the special value local could address it and together with @subdomains attribute covers all but one ([5]) from the above comments. In the light of LC#2 it seems that the my comments to CfC could be summarized as: Do the comments that arrived after the LC#1 deadline have to be repeated by their authors to get into LC#2 review (I assume not, but it is unclear to me). Comments should be addressed and we should leave it to the editor and chair to decide which comments become part of the Disposition of Comments. Regardless, all comments will be addressed. Robin has always addressed every comment that has come in. If not, then I assume they will be addressed in the LC#2 and I should not worry. Yes, you can rest easy:) Additionally, I may be (again) wrong, but I assume that LC#2 should start once the group internally is aligned with regard to the already received comments. We have already aligned. Hence this being public call for consensus. You still have not presented any valid reasons to progress LC#1 to LC#2. http://dev.w3.org
Re: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December
Marcin Hanclik wrote: Hi Marcos, You once accused us of being a kindergarten, and now you are asking us to willfully violate the process? Well :), I do not want to remember those multi-context discussions. We have already aligned. Thanks. Maybe... I recommend that you formally re-raise the local pattern issues once we publish LC#2 or continue working on your new spec (which Opera supports, btw)... but please, remove all duplicate text and keep is short, as Robin suggested. Ok, I will re-raise in LC#2 or discuss how to bring them back a kind of automatically. The delta spec will be short. Long specs suck The shorter the better; everyone hates reading specs (specially me, unless they have pictures... which I like). However, something tell me we are underestimating the complexity of this whole local service discovery thing and the spec you are proposing will grow into a little beast of it's own :)
Re: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December
On Dec 1, 2009, at 4:22 PM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote: Our motivation is that the comments received during the LC#1 were not all addressed. I believe all of the comments submitted during the LC#1 comment period (that ended 20-Sept-2009) were addressed. Since you indicate otherwise, please clearly identify any comment submitted during the LC comment period that was _not_ addressed. -Art Barstow
Re: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December
On Dec 2, 2009, at 10:38 , Marcin Hanclik wrote: Please list exactly which comment were not addressed. Many (various) comments resulted from this mail thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1202.html You (not sure about Robin, the editor) seem to like some of the ideas listed there. Many (various) comments isn't helpful. If you have clear and specific concerns, please by all means raise them in a timely fashion. But I don't think any group should pause for vagueness. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Re: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December
Robin Berjon wrote: On Dec 2, 2009, at 10:38 , Marcin Hanclik wrote: Please list exactly which comment were not addressed. Many (various) comments resulted from this mail thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1202.html You (not sure about Robin, the editor) seem to like some of the ideas listed there. Many (various) comments isn't helpful. If you have clear and specific concerns, please by all means raise them in a timely fashion. But I don't think any group should pause for vagueness. Agreed. Unless Marcin can provide real pointers and real issues we should not block publication.
Re: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December
On Dec 1, 2009, at 4:22 PM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote: Since the PAG has started with the earlier draft of WARP and relation to PAG was an argument for LC#2, we assume that the group still has time to accommodate the LC#1 comments in the present version of the specification without the detrimental effect on the proceedings within PAG. On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:21 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote: The PAG had no bearing on this work. Work continues as normal. On Dec 2, 2009, at 4:38 AM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote: I understood the email from Art [1] that there is a timing relation between both. The decision to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec is independent of the WARP PAG. A side effect of publishing LC#2 is a dated and immutable version of the spec will be created and the PAG *could* use that dated version *if* it so chooses. The PAG may also decide to use the latest ED but that has the disadvantage that it can change at any point of time. -Art Barstow
RE: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December
Hi Art, All, ACCESS does not support this publication. Our motivation is that the comments received during the LC#1 were not all addressed. Since the PAG has started with the earlier draft of WARP and relation to PAG was an argument for LC#2, we assume that the group still has time to accommodate the LC#1 comments in the present version of the specification without the detrimental effect on the proceedings within PAG. Thanks, Marcin Marcin Hanclik ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH Tel: +49-208-8290-6452 | Fax: +49-208-8290-6465 Mobile: +49-163-8290-646 E-Mail: marcin.hanc...@access-company.com -Original Message- From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 3:50 PM To: public-webapps Subject: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish Last Call Working Draft #2 of: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/ This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision to request advancement for this LCWD. Note that as specified in the Process Document [PD], a Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that: * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working Draft; * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant dependencies with other groups; * other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these dependencies have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call announcement is also a signal that the Working Group is planning to advance the technical report to later maturity levels. As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is December 2. For some additional background on this proposal, see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/ 0947.html -Art Barstow Access Systems Germany GmbH Essener Strasse 5 | D-46047 Oberhausen HRB 13548 Amtsgericht Duisburg Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michel Piquemal, Tomonori Watanabe, Yusuke Kanda www.access-company.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments hereto may contain information that is privileged or confidential, and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any disclosure, copying or distribution of the information by anyone else is strictly prohibited. If you have received this document in error, please notify us promptly by responding to this e-mail. Thank you.
Re: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December
On Tuesday, December 1, 2009, Marcin Hanclik marcin.hanc...@access-company.com wrote: Hi Art, All, ACCESS does not support this publication. Our motivation is that the comments received during the LC#1 were not all addressed. Please list exactly which comment were not addressed. Since the PAG has started with the earlier draft of WARP and relation to PAG was an argument for LC#2, we assume that the group still has time to accommodate the LC#1 comments in the present version of the specification without the detrimental effect on the proceedings within PAG. that's absurd. The PAG had no bearing on this work. Work continues as normal. Also, what the PAG has or had not done is member confidential; please stop discussing PAG matters in public. If you have *actual* issues with the current draft, list them quickly so we can address them ASAP. Thanks, Marcin Marcin Hanclik ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH Tel: +49-208-8290-6452 | Fax: +49-208-8290-6465 Mobile: +49-163-8290-646 E-Mail: marcin.hanc...@access-company.com -Original Message- From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 3:50 PM To: public-webapps Subject: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish Last Call Working Draft #2 of: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/ This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision to request advancement for this LCWD. Note that as specified in the Process Document [PD], a Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that: * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working Draft; * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant dependencies with other groups; * other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these dependencies have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call announcement is also a signal that the Working Group is planning to advance the technical report to later maturity levels. As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is December 2. For some additional background on this proposal, see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/ 0947.html -Art Barstow Access Systems Germany GmbH Essener Strasse 5 | D-46047 Oberhausen HRB 13548 Amtsgericht Duisburg Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michel Piquemal, Tomonori Watanabe, Yusuke Kanda www.access-company.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments hereto may contain information that is privileged or confidential, and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any disclosure, copying or distribution of the information by anyone else is strictly prohibited. If you have received this document in error, please notify us promptly by responding to this e-mail. Thank you. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Re: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December
On Nov 27, 2009, at 15:50 , Arthur Barstow wrote: As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is December 2. We support publishing this document. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Re: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote: On Nov 27, 2009, at 15:50 , Arthur Barstow wrote: As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is December 2. We support publishing this document. Opera supports publishing this document. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
