Re: Seeking status of Server-sent Events, Web Storage and Web Workers
On 12/6/2010 1:08 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote: Since Hixie is active on HTML, perhaps someone else is willing to pick one of these LCs and to review the issues, bugs, diffs, etc. and propose the next step . Any volunteers? I am responding to feedback on these specs, just not on the schedule I described earlier this year. (For instance, I just committed a change to Web Storage.) My lack of urgency on getting things to CR stems primarily from my disillusionment with the entire process; Web specs should just be continuously maintained, having snapshots on the TR/ page seems to have only one positive side-effect, and that's the effect on the patent policy. Other than that it just provides a distraction that implementors and authors can end up referencing instead of the more up-to-date and continually maintained draft. The drafts are actively maintained, and feedback is tracked and addressed. It's just not done with the goal of reaching the TR/ page, but rather with the goal of fostering interoperable implementations. Static section numbers, and patent policy are quite important to the lawyer crowd. I agree, it's just one positive side-effect, but it's a big one.
Re: Seeking status of Server-sent Events, Web Storage and Web Workers
OK, so coming back to the what's next for these 3 LC documents question [Head] ... All of these specs have a Bugzilla component for issue and comment tracking, all are included in the WHATWG issue tracker at [Issues], all of the specs have changed since their LC was published and all of the specs had at least one comment submitted against the LC via public-webapps. With respect to does a spec need to return to LC or can it advance to Candidate?, Section 7.4.6 of W3C process says: [[ http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#return-to-wg A technical report is returned to a Working Group for further work in either of the following situations: 1. The Working Group makes substantive changes http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#substantive-change to the technical report at any time after a Last Call announcement http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call and prior to Publication as a Recommendation http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-publication, *except* when the changes involve the removal of features at risk http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#at-risk-feature identified in a Call for Implementations http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi. In the case of substantive changes, the Working Group MUST republish the technical report as a Working Draft. ]] Since Hixie is active on HTML, perhaps someone else is willing to pick one of these LCs and to review the issues, bugs, diffs, etc. and propose the next step . Any volunteers? A few weeks ago, I reviewed the diffs, bugs and public-webapps comments for Server-sent Events and will send that data separately. -Art Barstow [Head] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0755.html [Issues] http://www.whatwg.org/issues/ [Bugzilla] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/query.cgi?format=advanced On Nov/29/2010 4:21 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote: Ian - regarding the following specs that ended LC on June 30, do you have some type of comment tracking document, like you did for XBL2 [XBL2-DoC]? I do not believe I kept track of e-mail feedback, but the history of feedback filed through Bugzilla is naturally available through Bugzilla. HTH.
Re: Seeking status of Server-sent Events, Web Storage and Web Workers
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote: Since Hixie is active on HTML, perhaps someone else is willing to pick one of these LCs and to review the issues, bugs, diffs, etc. and propose the next step . Any volunteers? I am responding to feedback on these specs, just not on the schedule I described earlier this year. (For instance, I just committed a change to Web Storage.) My lack of urgency on getting things to CR stems primarily from my disillusionment with the entire process; Web specs should just be continuously maintained, having snapshots on the TR/ page seems to have only one positive side-effect, and that's the effect on the patent policy. Other than that it just provides a distraction that implementors and authors can end up referencing instead of the more up-to-date and continually maintained draft. The drafts are actively maintained, and feedback is tracked and addressed. It's just not done with the goal of reaching the TR/ page, but rather with the goal of fostering interoperable implementations. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: Seeking status of Server-sent Events, Web Storage and Web Workers
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Charles Pritchard wrote: On 12/6/2010 1:08 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote: Since Hixie is active on HTML, perhaps someone else is willing to pick one of these LCs and to review the issues, bugs, diffs, etc. and propose the next step . Any volunteers? I am responding to feedback on these specs, just not on the schedule I described earlier this year. (For instance, I just committed a change to Web Storage.) My lack of urgency on getting things to CR stems primarily from my disillusionment with the entire process; Web specs should just be continuously maintained, having snapshots on the TR/ page seems to have only one positive side-effect, and that's the effect on the patent policy. Other than that it just provides a distraction that implementors and authors can end up referencing instead of the more up-to-date and continually maintained draft. The drafts are actively maintained, and feedback is tracked and addressed. It's just not done with the goal of reaching the TR/ page, but rather with the goal of fostering interoperable implementations. Static section numbers, and patent policy are quite important to the lawyer crowd. I agree, it's just one positive side-effect, but it's a big one. If anyone wants to just take the draft and regularly publish a REC snapshot of it for patent policy purposes, that's fine by me, provided the snapshot is suitably marked as being a snapshot for that purpose and doesn't profess to being the latest version. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: Seeking status of Server-sent Events, Web Storage and Web Workers
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote: Ian - regarding the following specs that ended LC on June 30, do you have some type of comment tracking document, like you did for XBL2 [XBL2-DoC]? I do not believe I kept track of e-mail feedback, but the history of feedback filed through Bugzilla is naturally available through Bugzilla. HTH. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Seeking status of Server-sent Events, Web Storage and Web Workers
Ian - regarding the following specs that ended LC on June 30, do you have some type of comment tracking document, like you did for XBL2 [XBL2-DoC]? 1. Server-sent Events http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-eventsource-20091222/ 2. Web Storage http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-webstorage-20091222/ 3. Web Workers http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-workers-20091222/ For each of these specs, it would be good to know its status, for example: are there any LC comments that still need to processed, has the ED changed such that a new WD must be published, is the spec ready to move to Candidate, etc. -Thanks, Art Barstow [XBL2-DoC] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/xbl2/disposition-of-comments.html Original Message Subject: ACTION-597: PubStatus update Plans for Workers/Storage/Event-source that HTML5 Editor workload is the block and ask for volunteers (Web Applications Working Group) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 11:33:51 +0100 From: ext Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker sysbot+trac...@w3.org Reply-To: Web Applications Working Group WG public-webapps@w3.org To: Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) art.bars...@nokia.com ACTION-597: PubStatus update Plans for Workers/Storage/Event-source that HTML5 Editor workload is the block and ask for volunteers (Web Applications Working Group) http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/597 On: Arthur Barstow Due: 2010-11-08 If you do not want to be notified on new action items for this group, please update your settings at: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/users/7672#settings
