> On 10 Jul 2016, at 16:35, Marcos Caceres <mar...@marcosc.com> wrote: > > On July 9, 2016 at 6:24:56 AM, Domenic Denicola (d...@domenic.me) wrote: >> From: Travis Leithead [mailto:travis.leith...@microsoft.com] >> >>> The purpose of the “Level 1” document is to serve as a stable reference for >>> W3C specs that >> link to WebIDL. It contains a subset of the WebIDL syntax that is considered >> stable (as >> verified by interoperable tests). Implementations should not use the Level 1 >> document >> as a guide, but instead track changes to the editors draft. We expect to >> follow-up Level >> 1 with a Level 2 as additional editor’s draft syntax and behavior >> stabilizes, are implemented >> as part of other specs, and shown to be interoperable. >> >> Why is it acceptable for specs to reference a version of Web IDL that nobody >> should implement? > > This is a totally valid question, but we've had this debate 1001 > times. Perhaps a better question is: how can we get patent protection > (making this subset of WebIDL royalty free for society), but without > harming the ecosystem by confusing implementers and developers by > publishing on the "/TRash" space (as most of us now unfortunately > referring to it). > > We need a way to clearly indicate that, for a subset of documents, > RECs on TR represent a royalty free set of ideas (as kindly and > honorably granted by the W3C Membership) - and should only be referred > to by patent lawyers and government officials. That it's for those > groups should be stated and promoted proudly, not disparagingly. And, > that implementers should be looking at the living document instead. > The value of TR need not be diminished - in fact: it should be > correctly used to published the documents that enshrine the royalty > free status of particular specifications.
The goal of publishing this as a REC is not to have a final document nor to please only the lawyers. The goal is to provide a document that contains the parts of the WebIDL syntax that are implemented, and the associated implemented ES-binding, as a guide for spec authors that are not following the main WebIDL spec evolutions (as not everybody has your knowledge of what is or is not usable in WebIDL). The -1 spec explicitly states that people wanting to implement WebIDL are invited to read the main WebIDL specification (that, ideally, should be automatically published as /TR/WebIDL ) because yes WebIDL-1 is _not_ the WebIDL specification, just a frozen snapshot of what was implemented as the time of publication, not more than that, and bound to be replaced by a subsequent level later on. > Perhaps we need a new space just for documents that represent and > agree to set of royalty free ideas? (i..e, if it's a REC, it does into > this new space - and gets clearly marked for the appropriate target > audience, which is not implementers or developers - but patent lawyers > and government officials)... > > I think we've also had this debate 10001 times too... but we need to > do something folks, as the division between the forks and the reality > of how web specs are developed is hurting everyone :( > > Kind regards, > Marcos > -- Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras. ~~Yves