> On 16 Sep, 2015, at 8:17 pm, Arthur Barstow <art.bars...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 9/16/15 4:47 AM, Mike West wrote: >> Note that this is an issue that's going to come up for a number of WebAppSec >> specs (see >> https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/#issue-a30f61b8 >> <https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/#issue-a30f61b8>, >> for instance (and that spec also needs a few things that are missing from >> W3C's HTML, but are present in WHATWG's)). What I hear so far on this thread >> is that we should simply reference the WHATWG version of those specs, which >> seems like a reasonable thing to do. > > Yes, for the scenario you mention, I agree with you. > > The grey area is when a feature is defined by both a W3C WG and WHATWG. > Because of the consortium's Patent Policy, I suspect consensus among > consortium members is to use the W3C spec for normative references. However, > if the W3C spec is no longer actively maintained by a WG, then normatively > referencing a WHATWG spec would (IMHO) be appropriate and I think the > Normative Reference Policy [NRP] supports such a scenario. > > In this specific case, I don't believe anyone has committed to actively > maintain W3C Web Workers. As such, WebApps - do we have a volunteer? Please > let us know (or send me private e-mail if you prefer).
If it helps, I’d like to prepare a Workers draft to revise the previous CR, and schedule the publication ASAP (hopefully 22 Sep). The goal is to synchronise with the upstream, to document the changes since the previous CR and to identify the "at risk” features. Thanks. -- xiaoqian > > -Thanks, AB > > [NRP] <http://www.w3.org/2013/09/normative-references> > > >> >> -mike >> >> -- >> Mike West <mk...@google.com <mailto:mk...@google.com>>, @mikewest >> >> Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany, >> Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: >> Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores >> (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.) >> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Mike West <mk...@google.com >> <mailto:mk...@google.com>> wrote: >> >> The "Upgrade Insecure Requests" specification references the >> WHATWG HTML spec for the >> "set up a worker environment settings object" algorithm, as the >> Web Workers Candidate Recommendation from May 2012 >> substantially predates the entire concept of a "settings object", >> and because the WHATWG is the group where work on Workers seems to >> be being done. >> >> This referential choice was flagged during a discussion of >> transitioning the Upgrade spec to CR, where it was noted that the >> Web Workers editor's draft from May 2014 does contain the >> referenced concept. >> >> It seems appropriate, then, to bring the question to this group: >> does WebApps intend to update the Workers draft in TR? If so, is >> there a path forward to aligning the Workers document with the >> work that's happened over the last year and a half in WHATWG? >> Alternatively, does WebApps intend to drop work on Workers in >> favor of the WHATWG's document? >> >> It would be helpful if we could get some clarity here. :) >> >> Thanks! >> >> : https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/upgrade/ >> : >> >> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/workers.html#set-up-a-worker-environment-settings-object >> : http://www.w3.org/TR/workers/ >> : https://w3c.github.io/workers/ >> >> -- >> Mike West <mk...@google.com <mailto:mk...@google.com>>, @mikewest >> >> Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, >> Germany, Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der >> Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine >> Elizabeth Flores >> (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to >> emails. Bleh.) >> >> > >