Re: CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2
On 2012-11-25 16:19, Ms2ger wrote: On 11/25/2012 02:49 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is Call for Consensus to publish a Working Draft of the DOM spec using #ED as the basis. Same objections as to the XHR WD. From your XHR objection: I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical spec on whatwg.org. In addition to the link I already had in the draft, I have now included this statement above the W3C copyright notice. This specification is based on DOM Standard published by the WHATWG. DOM Standard is licensed under Creative Commons CC0 1.0 (Public Domain Dedication). I have also stated this in the status section: This document is published by the Web Applications Working Group in co-operation with the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group. The Working Group expects to advance this Working Draft to Recommendation Status. Does that address your concerns? I have committed a WD ready copy, with the publication date tentatively set for 6 December. http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
[admin] Consistent Boilerplate and Status sections for EDs [Was: Re: CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2]
Hi Adam, Yes I agree it would be good if the EDs for XHR and DOM (and URL and Fullscreen) used relatively consistent boilerplate (by boilerplate/BP, I mean the top of the documentto the first section that contains text such as the Abstract, SotD, ToC, Intro, etc.). Some people may not realize the so-called Technical Reports PubRules do _not_ apply to EDs. This provides Editors - who do a substantial part of the group's work - some flexibility but it also means an ED's BP and/or SotD can be (significantly) different than the BP and SotD of the related TR and that can result in some confusion. Ideally, the BP and SotD section of WebApps' EDs would be effectively the same as the versions of the spec created as TRs. And indeed, of the group's ~40 specs, this is true for most (~35) of the specs. A few Editors, for what I will characterize as non technical reasons, have decided to make relatively significant changes to their BP and in a few cases the ED does not even have a SotD section. Although my preference is for the BP and SotD parts of EDs and TRs versions be mostly the same, I am not at all interested in creating publication rules for EDs nor am I willing to track the conformance of such rules. In the future, for these few specs where the ED's BP and/or SotD is different than what is required for TR, it would make sense to ask the Editors to create a TR version _before_ the CfC starts^1. And yes, my expectation is TRs will give appropriate attribution. -AB ^1 I will ask the XHR and DOM Editors to create a TR version of their specs now so they can be used during their CfCs. On 11/25/12 11:36 AM, ext Adam Barth wrote: It seems like we should be consistent in our handling of the DOM and XHR documents. For example, the copy of DOM at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html lacks a Status of this Document section, but presumably the version published by this working group will have one. If we decide that the SotD section of XHR ought to acknowledge the WHATWG, we likely should do the same for this document. The copy of DOM at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html seems to give appropriate credit by linking to the Living Standard and listing sensible Editors. Will the version of the document published by this working group also give credit appropriately? Adam On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: This is Call for Consensus to publish a Working Draft of the DOM spec using #ED as the basis. Please note Lachlan will continue to edit the ED during this CfC period. Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD. If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to this e-mail by December 2 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. -Thanks, AB #ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Re: CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2
Hi Lachlan, Given the discussions about spec boilerplate, Status of this Document section, etc., Ithink we need a PubReady TR version of the DOM spec before this CfC can continue.As such, please create a TR version now and reply with the URLso this CfC can proceed with the document WebApps will submit for publication. -Thanks, AB On 11/25/12 8:49 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: This is Call for Consensus to publish a Working Draft of the DOM spec using #ED as the basis. Please note Lachlan will continue to edit the ED during this CfC period. Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD. If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to this e-mail by December 2 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. -Thanks, AB #ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2
This is Call for Consensus to publish a Working Draft of the DOM spec using #ED as the basis. Please note Lachlan will continue to edit the ED during this CfC period. Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD. If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to this e-mail by December 2 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. -Thanks, AB #ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Re: CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2
On 11/25/2012 02:49 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is Call for Consensus to publish a Working Draft of the DOM spec using #ED as the basis. Please note Lachlan will continue to edit the ED during this CfC period. Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD. If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to this e-mail by December 2 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. *sigh* Same objections as to the XHR WD. Ms2ger
Re: CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2
On 11/25/12 10:19 AM, ext Ms2ger wrote: Same objections as to the XHR WD. Are you talking about http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0542.html? The DOM ED includes the following in the boilerplate: [[ Living Standard: http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/ ]] What (else) are you looking for? -Thanks, AB
Re: CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2
It seems like we should be consistent in our handling of the DOM and XHR documents. For example, the copy of DOM at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html lacks a Status of this Document section, but presumably the version published by this working group will have one. If we decide that the SotD section of XHR ought to acknowledge the WHATWG, we likely should do the same for this document. The copy of DOM at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html seems to give appropriate credit by linking to the Living Standard and listing sensible Editors. Will the version of the document published by this working group also give credit appropriately? Adam On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: This is Call for Consensus to publish a Working Draft of the DOM spec using #ED as the basis. Please note Lachlan will continue to edit the ED during this CfC period. Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD. If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to this e-mail by December 2 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. -Thanks, AB #ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
