On Wed, 25 May 2016 00:52:07 +0100, <mar...@marcosc.com> wrote:
On 25 May 2016, at 3:54 AM, Léonie Watson <t...@tink.uk> wrote:
At the AC meeting in March 2016 the WP co-chairs indicated that the
Packaging on the Web specification  would benefit from further
incubation before continuing along the Recommendation track.
This is a CFC to publish Packaging on the Web as a W3C note.
We generally "gut" Notes to avoid confusion and prevent implementation.
It might be fine to gut it if there is no implementer interest
(particularly give Service Workers and HTTP2).
But then, we should not use "incubation" as a euphemism for "no one is
going to implement this and we don't want it" as it demeans the work of
groups like the WIGC - that actually do incubation.
I agree that "We're trying to kill this work" should not be expressed as
"needs incubation". That's not the situation.
At least, I will strongly object to the use of that word if your
intention is to kill the spec.
It is not our intention to kill the spec, however we think that the
current approach should be sidelined - and if people are interested,
incubated - to make way for a shorter-term approach we believe will get
more traction as an interim solution.
So, what then is the real reason for WP terminating work on the spec?
You're right that we do not think the spec is going to go forward in a
hurry. It has several nice features, and we presume the TAG wasn't just
whistling in the wind, so incubating it seems a reasonable thing to do.
There is a lot of implementation of packaging mechanisms that are
basically "zip and a manifest". We expect that someone will propose
something based on that and that it can get traction - much like the
previous Recommendation along those lines, in which you were heavily
In the meantime, moving the current draft specification aside allows us to
start a new one, which clarifies the IPR situation - something we
understand is a concern for some members, even if only so they don't have
to get a legal clearance because we're basically rehashing old technology
with an established recommendation behind it, in a new syntax.
Can we see the minutes from the rationale given to the AC?
I doubt it. They are confidential and the work to get them approved for
release - asking everyone involved, given that they spoke in the
expectation of confidentiality - seems excessive for the relative value.
Since you personally have access, you're welcome to look and see if you
think it's worth the effort.
If the CFC passes, the transition of the specification to note status
will be done within the current WP WG charter.
If you have comments or concerns about this CFC, please send them to
firstname.lastname@example.org no later than 2nd June 2016. Positive responses
are preferred and encouraged, but silence will be considered as
agreement with the proposal.
Is the plan then to transition it to the WICG for incubation? If so, we
can just take it and there is no need for process - but we only take it
if there is actual implementer interest and not if it's not going
That's a judgement call. *I* do not know of implementor interest.
Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team.
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com