On 2011-11-04 17:10, Arthur Barstow wrote:
...
The group discussed this on October 31 [1]. The gist of the agreement is
that since the text that is now in the API spec used to be in the
protocol spec, the totality of a review of the two specs is effectively
the same. In this view, the change to the API spec is not substantive.
...
Doesn't compute. The text was *removed* from the protocol spec because
the WG found it to be misleading (suggesting WS URIs are different from
other URIs). It was *not* removed because we thought it belongs
somewhere else. Also, in case that wasn't clear, it was *replaced* by
different text.
2. The substantive issue of whether the text is correct. Julian asked
some questions about that, and I'd be curious to see replies (especially
because they are related to similar topics in HTML5).
I think we need to continue to move forward and to acknowledge several
implementations of the API spec have been deployed. As such, I tend to
think we may have already passed the point of diminishing returns
regarding minor tweaks to the spec and if there are bugs, in the spec,
please file bugs and we can address them during CR.
...
Right now, the spec "uses" an algorithm without actually referring to
it. A *minimal* fix is to make that a proper reference.
Best regards, Julian
