As an offer of help, from a group whose charter covers this work, that's very welcome. I felt that I was being shepherded into something on behalf of others for whom I cannot speak, which was uncomfortable!
For my own sake, I am disinclined to participate in a standardization effort outside of the usual institutions. I think we could benefit from the experience of people who have produced web standards before. I'm not well-connected enough yet to anticipate what folks will say, but I'll suggest the Browser Testing Tools WG when the opportunity comes up. On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 5:32 AM, James Graham <ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk> wrote: > On 04/09/17 23:34, Jim Blandy wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:36 AM, David Burns <dbu...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> >>> I don't think anyone would disagree with the reasons for doing this. I, >>> >> like James who brought it up earlier, am concerned that we from the emails >> appear to think that implementing the wire protocol would be sufficient to >> making sure we have the same semantics. >> >> LOL, give us a little credit, okay? The authors of the email do not think >> that. We want to have a properly written specification and conformance >> tests. I think you're reading "we have no interest in established >> standardization processes" when what we wrote was "the process is in very >> early stages". >> >> Do you think the Browser Testing Tools WG is the right body to work on a >> JS >> debugging and console protocol, used by interactive developer tools? That >> seems like a surprising choice to me. >> > > It is certainly not the only possible venue, but if you want to do the > work at the W3C then it's probably the easiest way to get things going from > a Process point of view, since this kind of protocol would be in the > general remit of the group, and the rechartering could add it specifically. > Certainly the people currently in the group aren't the right ones to do the > work, but adding new participants to work specifically on this would be > trivial. > > Also - at least as far as I know - this is not where the current >> participants in the discussion (Kenneth Auchenberg or Christian Bromann, >> to >> name two) have been working. Is having a previously uninvolved standards >> committee take up an area in which current activity is occurring elsewhere >> considered friendly and cooperative behavior? It seems unfriendly to me. I >> would like to avoid upsetting the people I'm hoping to work closely with. >> > > I think you have misinterpreted the intent here. I don't think anyone is > interested in doing a hostile takeover of existing work. But there is > concern that the work actually happens. Pointing at remotedebug.org, > which has been around since 2013 without producing any specification > materials, isn't helping assuage my concerns, and I guess others are having > a similar reaction. It is of course entirely possible that there's work > going on that we can't see. But my interpretation of David's email is that > he is trying to offer you options, not force you down a certain path. The > W3C is not always the right venue to work in, but it is sometimes sought > out by organisations who would likely participate in this work because of > its relatively strong IPR policy. > > I should stress that irrespective of venue I would expect this > standardisation effort to take years; people always underestimate the work > and time required for standards work. It will certainly require us to > commit resources to make it happen. > > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
