Re: CfC: FPWD of Web Messaging; deadline November 13
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > Ian, All - during WebApps' November 1 gathering, participants expressed > in an interest in publishing a First Public Working Draft of Web > Messaging [1] and this is a CfC to do so: > > http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/ > > This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's > decision to request advancement". I'd rather not add another document to the list of documents for which I have to maintain separate W3C headers and footers at this time (especially given that I'm behind on taking the other drafts I'm editing to LC). The text in the spec really belongs in the HTML spec anyway and is already published by the WHATWG in the HTML spec there, and is already getting ample review and maintenance there, so I don't think it's especially pressing to publish it as a separate doc on the TR/ page. (The contents of the doc have already gone through FPWD at the W3C, so there's not even a patent policy reason to do it.) I'm also a bit concerned that every time we publish anything on the TR/ page, we end up littering the Web with obsolete drafts (since the specs are maintained much faster than we publish them). I'd really rather just move away from publishing drafts on the TR/ page at all, if we could update the patent policy accordingly. I frequently get questions in private e-mails from implementors who are looking at obsolete drafts on the TR/ page about issues that have long been solved in the up to date drafts on dev.w3.org or at the WHATWG. If there wasn't such high overhead to publishing on the TR/ page, an alternative would be to publish a new draft there frequently. In fact, the best thing on the short term might be to publish a new REC-level draft there every week or every month or some such (probably the best interval would be whatever the patent policy's exclusion window is), since that would actually make the patent policy work again. (Currently the patent policy at the W3C is almost as useless as at the IETF since when we follow the process properly, we almost never get to REC.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: CfC: FPWD of Web Messaging; deadline November 13
I favor publication of Web Messaging. Regards, Maciej On Nov 6, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Ian, All - during WebApps' November 1 gathering, participants expressed in an > interest in publishing a First Public Working Draft of Web Messaging [1] and > this is a CfC to do so: > > http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/ > > This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's decision > to request advancement". > > By publishing this FPWD, the group sends a signal to the community to begin > reviewing the document. The FPWD reflects where the group is on this spec at > the time of publication; it does not necessarily mean there is consensus on > the spec's contents. > > 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 November 13. > > -Art Barstow > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/01-webapps-minutes.html#item04 > > Original Message > Subject: ACTION-598: Start a CfC to publish a FPWD of Web Messaging (Web > Applications Working Group) > Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 11:35:29 +0100 > From: ext Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker > Reply-To: Web Applications Working Group WG > To: Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) > ACTION-598: Start a CfC to publish a FPWD of Web Messaging (Web Applications > Working Group) > > http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/598 > > On: Arthur Barstow > Due: 2010-11-08 >
Re: CfC: FPWD of Web Messaging; deadline November 13
On Nov 6, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> >> Ian, All - during WebApps' November 1 gathering, participants expressed >> in an interest in publishing a First Public Working Draft of Web >> Messaging [1] and this is a CfC to do so: >> >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/ >> >> This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's >> decision to request advancement". > > I'd rather not add another document to the list of documents for which I > have to maintain separate W3C headers and footers at this time (especially > given that I'm behind on taking the other drafts I'm editing to LC). The > text in the spec really belongs in the HTML spec anyway and is already > published by the WHATWG in the HTML spec there, and is already getting > ample review and maintenance there, so I don't think it's especially > pressing to publish it as a separate doc on the TR/ page. (The contents of > the doc have already gone through FPWD at the W3C, so there's not even a > patent policy reason to do it.) Once HTML5 goes to Last Call, then the relevant scope of the patent policy will be the LCWD, not the FPWD. At that point, there will be a strong patent policy reason to have an FPWD of this material. Regards, Maciej
Re: CfC: FPWD of Web Messaging; deadline November 13
On Nov/6/2010 6:04 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote: On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote: Ian, All - during WebApps' November 1 gathering, participants expressed in an interest in publishing a First Public Working Draft of Web Messaging [1] and this is a CfC to do so: http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/ This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's decision to request advancement". I'd rather not add another document to the list of documents for which I have to maintain separate W3C headers and footers at this time (especially given that I'm behind on taking the other drafts I'm editing to LC). The text in the spec really belongs in the HTML spec anyway and is already published by the WHATWG in the HTML spec there, and is already getting ample review and maintenance there, so I don't think it's especially pressing to publish it as a separate doc on the TR/ page. (The contents of the doc have already gone through FPWD at the W3C, so there's not even a patent policy reason to do it.) I think we all understand the workload issue here and I probably should have mentioned this CfC to you before sending it to public-webapps (so sorry about that!). When WebApps re-chartered last Spring, Web Messaging was added to our Charter thus there is an expectation we will publish it. Assuming we get consensus to publish the FPWD, one way to move forward with the publication would be for me [and Mike Smith if he's available] to copy the latest ED and only make required changes to the text to pass Pub Rules e.g. update the Status of the Doc section. Would that be OK? I'm also a bit concerned that every time we publish anything on the TR/ page, we end up littering the Web with obsolete drafts (since the specs are maintained much faster than we publish them). I'd really rather just move away from publishing drafts on the TR/ page at all, if we could update the patent policy accordingly. I frequently get questions in private e-mails from implementors who are looking at obsolete drafts on the TR/ page about issues that have long been solved in the up to date drafts on dev.w3.org or at the WHATWG. If there wasn't such high overhead to publishing on the TR/ page, an alternative would be to publish a new draft there frequently. In fact, the best thing on the short term might be to publish a new REC-level draft there every week or every month or some such (probably the best interval would be whatever the patent policy's exclusion window is), since that would actually make the patent policy work again. (Currently the patent policy at the W3C is almost as useless as at the IETF since when we follow the process properly, we almost never get to REC.) I think these are good discussion topics and I would prefer to not let them block this CfC. Perhaps some other Public mail list (i.e. not public-webapps) would be a better place for related discussions although I don't have a firm recommendation (www-talk?). Mike, Team - can you provide some advice here on a Public list for discussions related to process and publication issues? -Art Barstow
Re: CfC: FPWD of Web Messaging; deadline November 13
On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:48:40 +0100, Arthur Barstow wrote: Ian, All - during WebApps' November 1 gathering, participants expressed in an interest in publishing a First Public Working Draft of Web Messaging [1] and this is a CfC to do so: http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/ Opera supports publication. cheers This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's decision to request advancement". By publishing this FPWD, the group sends a signal to the community to begin reviewing the document. The FPWD reflects where the group is on this spec at the time of publication; it does not necessarily mean there is consensus on the spec's contents. 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 November 13. -Art Barstow [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/01-webapps-minutes.html#item04 Original Message Subject:ACTION-598: Start a CfC to publish a FPWD of Web Messaging (Web Applications Working Group) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 11:35:29 +0100 From: ext Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker Reply-To: Web Applications Working Group WG To: Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) ACTION-598: Start a CfC to publish a FPWD of Web Messaging (Web Applications Working Group) http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/598 On: Arthur Barstow Due: 2010-11-08 -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Re: CfC: FPWD of Web Messaging; deadline November 13
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > When WebApps re-chartered last Spring, Web Messaging was added to our > Charter thus there is an expectation we will publish it. I really don't think that what our charters say sets much of an expectation. There would be much more concern over them being accurate if that was the case. :-) > Assuming we get consensus to publish the FPWD, one way to move forward > with the publication would be for me [and Mike Smith if he's available] > to copy the latest ED and only make required changes to the text to pass > Pub Rules e.g. update the Status of the Doc section. Would that be OK? Honestly I don't really see what value publishing this draft has. Just doing it because our charter says to do it is just bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. In any case, I do not think we should publish this draft without first solving these problems: > > I'm also a bit concerned that every time we publish anything on the TR/ > > page, we end up littering the Web with obsolete drafts (since the specs > > are maintained much faster than we publish them). I'd really rather just > > move away from publishing drafts on the TR/ page at all, if we could > > update the patent policy accordingly. I frequently get questions in > > private e-mails from implementors who are looking at obsolete drafts on > > the TR/ page about issues that have long been solved in the up to date > > drafts on dev.w3.org or at the WHATWG. > > > > If there wasn't such high overhead to publishing on the TR/ page, an > > alternative would be to publish a new draft there frequently. In fact, the > > best thing on the short term might be to publish a new REC-level draft > > there every week or every month or some such (probably the best interval > > would be whatever the patent policy's exclusion window is), since that > > would actually make the patent policy work again. (Currently the patent > > policy at the W3C is almost as useless as at the IETF since when we follow > > the process properly, we almost never get to REC.) These problems are technically easy to solve, only politics would prevent us from addressing them. I'm not really interested in discussing the politics, though. The problems are pretty obvious to anyone who's involved in the development of actively-used Web standards; IMHO it's just something W3C staff should fix, there's no need for any discussion really. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: CfC: FPWD of Web Messaging; deadline November 13
I support this. / Jonas On Saturday, November 6, 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > > > > > > > Ian, All - during WebApps' November 1 gathering, participants > expressed in an interest in publishing a First Public Working Draft > of Web Messaging [1] and this is a CfC to do so: > > http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/ > > This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's > decision to request advancement". > > By publishing this FPWD, the group sends a signal to the community > to begin reviewing the document. The FPWD reflects where the group > is on this spec at the time of publication; it does not necessarily > mean there is consensus on the spec's contents. > > 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 November 13. > > -Art Barstow > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/01-webapps-minutes.html#item04 > > Original Message > > > > Subject: > ACTION-598: Start a CfC to publish a FPWD of Web Messaging > (Web Applications Working Group) > > > Date: > Mon, 1 Nov 2010 11:35:29 +0100 > > > From: > ext Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker > > > > Reply-To: > > Web Applications Working Group WG > > > > To: > Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) > > > > > > ACTION-598: Start a CfC to publish a FPWD of Web Messaging (Web > Applications Working Group) > > http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/598 > > On: Arthur Barstow > Due: 2010-11-08 > > > > >
Re: CfC: FPWD of Web Messaging; deadline November 13
Hi Ian, On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:47:18 +0100, Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote: When WebApps re-chartered last Spring, Web Messaging was added to our Charter thus there is an expectation we will publish it. I really don't think that what our charters say sets much of an expectation. There would be much more concern over them being accurate if that was the case. :-) Possibly somewhat true, but we should aim to make it more the case rather than less... On the other hand there is certainly concern raised about what that charter does and doesn't say which implies that people already think it sets expectations, and there are also concerns raised when those are not met. So I suspect it isn't quite as irrelevant as you seem to suggest :) Assuming we get consensus to publish the FPWD, one way to move forward with the publication would be for me [and Mike Smith if he's available] to copy the latest ED and only make required changes to the text to pass Pub Rules e.g. update the Status of the Doc section. Would that be OK? Honestly I don't really see what value publishing this draft has. Just doing it because our charter says to do it is just bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. In any case, I do not think we should publish this draft without first solving these problems: There are a couple of bits of value. 1. As Maciej already pointed out, the structure of the Patent Policy means there is value in having the FPWD. 2. There are a lot of people who are only tangentially involved in W3C but use its specs, and it signals to them that this is still something moving actively. 3. It motivates (some of) us to fix the problems with the current approach to publishing. > I'm also a bit concerned that every time we publish anything on the > TR/ page, we end up littering the Web with obsolete drafts (since the > specs are maintained much faster than we publish them). I'd really > rather just move away from publishing drafts on the TR/ page at all, > if we could update the patent policy accordingly. ... These problems are technically easy to solve, only politics would prevent us from addressing them. Unfortunately politics are real things, not just some imaginary bogeyman we use to frighten children away from questioning us. I'm not really interested in discussing the politics, though. This, for example, is a political statement (as well as a rational sentiment). The problems are pretty obvious to anyone who's involved in the development of actively-used Web standards; The problems for people who are developing web-standards are obvious to those people. Unfortunately there are other problems faced by people actively using them. Judging from your proposal, they may not be so obvious to people who are actively developing standards. For example, when setting requirements that standards be used in an industry (as opposed to mandating particular products), there is a common and natural reluctance to simply assume that any changes to the standards will be benign, or of little impact. (I would also characterise this as common sense). Before a standard is completed (and in the rapid development model, usually therefore only of historical interest) it is important to refer to it in various ways, and some of those will require the ability to reference something where there is faith that it really is stable. IMHO it's just something W3C staff should fix, there's no need for any discussion really. While I believe we agree on a lot of what the problem you talk about is, and probably in large part on the solution, I think it's a little more complex than you make out, and involves more of the 'stakeholder community' (yay corporate-speak) with different impacts on different parts. So I would be (pleasantly) surprised if no discussion is needed. Either way, I don't see why it should directly hold up publication. Naturally this discussion takes time away from preparing a draft, but someone other than you can do that - it isn't very time-consuming or complicated work. The question here is whether there is a strong reason not to publish one - i.e. do you object to the Working Group publishing its work according to the normal process, or do you just want to point out that there are things we really need to improve in that process, and that in any event you currently don't have the time to do the mechanical work for publishing? cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
