On 12/6/13 7:40 AM, ext Ms2ger wrote:
On 11/26/2013 08:43 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Earlier today Travis closed the last open bug for DOM Parsing and
Serialization so this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a LCWD of
that spec, using the following ED as the basis:
<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/raw-file/tip/index.html>
If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please send them to
[email protected] by December 3 at the latest. Positive response is
preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement
with the proposal.
In the first place I'd like to note that I'm unhappy with the way this
specification is being edited.
If you mean the technical aspects, please do file bugs or send comments
to public-webapps list.
The way it is explicitly trying to contradict the DOM standard is
uncannily similar to the way DOM 3 Events did that (which, as you may
remember, led to the WG deciding against those requirements).
Please file bugs or send comments to public-webapps.
I don't think this specification has received sufficient review to
call it LC-ready, especially given that there has not been any
discussion of the changes before this CfC.
I view one of the main reasons for publishing a LCWD is to get wide review.
I also wish to strongly object to the following change:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/rev/8f29e6f6eea2
which you made after the end of the CfC. I don't think it is
appropriate to make such a change without requesting review. The
change to the list of editors reverts bug 18935 [1], and incorrectly
suggests that I am involved with this fork.
I'm really sorry about that. I just removed your name from the Editors
list in the Draft LC
<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/raw-file/default/LCWD-DOM-Parsing-20131205.html>.
Even worse is the removal of the reference to the source
specification, given that you know that this is a contentious subject
in this WG.
Both Travis and I supported keeping that information in the boilerplate.
The W3C Staff told us it must be removed before the LC could be
published as at TR. (FYI, I filed a related Issue against the TR
publication rules
<https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/71>. I think the
public-w3process list is an appropriate place to discuss the
Consortium's publication rules.)
-ArtB
I therefore object to the publication of this specification in the
current form.
Ms2ger
[1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18935
