On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Marcos <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On June 23, 2014 at 4:07:09 PM, Glenn Adams ([email protected]) wrote: > > What is the plan, i.e., schedule timeline, for moving WebIDL to REC? We > > have now a two year old CR that appears to be stuck and a 2nd Edition > that > > I'm not sure has made it to FPWD. > > > > Given the high degree of dependency from other specs and implementations > on > > this work, we really need to find a way to wrap up this work or at least > > publish something reasonably stable. > > > IMO, we should just concede that this document needs to be a Living > Standard (tm).
I don't mind there being a "living standard" form of the document. But that is not sufficient. There must be some final REC version of some edition/snapshot of this work that provides a non-movable mark for real-world compliance testing and device certification. > Trying to move this through the W3C process is clearly not working. There is no reason it can't or shouldn't. > Even if we were able to take the V1 bits to Rec (a lot of which is now > obsolete), the V2 stuff is already widely supported and heavily relied on > by browser vendors. IMO, it's a waste of everyone's time to try to maintain > multiple versions. > I agree that the V1 CR should be abandoned or replaced with a completed snapshot of V2. Though it would be useful to ask a wider community about the value of moving some flavor of V1 to REC. > > -- > Marcos Caceres > > >
