RE: Call for Consensus: Publish HTML 5.2 FPWD?
+1 to publish * katie * Katie Haritos-Shea Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA) Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryla...@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 | @ryladog -Original Message- From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 6:15 AM To: Chaals McCathie Nevile ; public-webapps WG Subject: Re: Call for Consensus: Publish HTML 5.2 FPWD? Reminder that this CFC closes on Thursday 14th July (end of day). If you can take a few minutes to respond through one of the three proposed channels, it will help us identify the work mode that suits the WG best. Thanks. Léonie. On 05/07/2016 15:15, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote: > This is a call for consensus on the proposition: > > Publish the current editors' draft of HTML 5.2 - > https://w3c.github.io/html/ - as a First Public Working Draft. > > Silence will be considered assent, but positive responses are preferred. > In an effort to find a smoother way to assess consensus, there are > three possible mechanisms for feedback, and you should pick the one > you find most convenient: > > You can provide a response in this email thread. > > You can provide a comment or thumbs-up in the issue in the HTML repo - > https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/515 > > You can provide a comment or thumbs-up in the issue in the > WebPlatformWG repo - https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/issues/43 > > There is no need to use more than one of these mechanisms, as the > chairs will collate the results. > > If many people use the issues instead of email, we will likely propose > a change to the work mode for assessing consensus. > > There will be a separate thread on the merits of any procedural change > - please *only* reply to this thread to support or oppose the FPWD > publication. > > cheers > > Chaals, for the chairs >
Re: Call for Consensus: Publish HTML 5.2 FPWD?
+1 to publish On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Léonie Watson wrote: > Reminder that this CFC closes on Thursday 14th July (end of day). If you > can take a few minutes to respond through one of the three proposed > channels, it will help us identify the work mode that suits the WG best. > Thanks. > > Léonie. > > > On 05/07/2016 15:15, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote: > >> This is a call for consensus on the proposition: >> >> Publish the current editors' draft of HTML 5.2 - >> https://w3c.github.io/html/ - as a First Public Working Draft. >> >> Silence will be considered assent, but positive responses are preferred. >> In an effort to find a smoother way to assess consensus, there are three >> possible mechanisms for feedback, and you should pick the one you find >> most convenient: >> >> You can provide a response in this email thread. >> >> You can provide a comment or thumbs-up in the issue in the HTML repo - >> https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/515 >> >> You can provide a comment or thumbs-up in the issue in the WebPlatformWG >> repo - https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/issues/43 >> >> There is no need to use more than one of these mechanisms, as the chairs >> will collate the results. >> >> If many people use the issues instead of email, we will likely propose a >> change to the work mode for assessing consensus. >> >> There will be a separate thread on the merits of any procedural change - >> please *only* reply to this thread to support or oppose the FPWD >> publication. >> >> cheers >> >> Chaals, for the chairs >> >> > -- Download the aXe browser extension for free: Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/axe-devtools Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/axe/lhdoppojpmngadmnindnejefpokejbdd?hl=en-US Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it. - Lou Holtz
Re: Quick update on WebIDL "Level 1"
> On 11 Jul 2016, at 10:45 PM, Yves Lafon wrote: > > 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). Yes, but that's precisely the point. If something is not interoperable in the spec, then it should be fixed. Now we are back at Domenic's email. No spec editors should be, or will be, referencing v1. It's simple pointless to think otherwise. Look, all browser vendors already implement promise-using WebIDL-based APIs, which means that they've already had to implement v2 features. I think a large segment of the WG has made it pretty clear that's it harmful to pretend that WebIDL 1 has any value to anyone but patent lawyers. Technically, it's just going to be bit-rotting trash sitting on TR (as you even acknowledge below). > > 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. Yes, but it's grossly obsolete and no one but patent lawyers should be, or will be, looking at it. So why bother putting it on TR? You can't seriously say that anyone writing specs would be using it to implement against - not even as joke. It has zero value from a technical perspective - yet huge value from an IPR perspective. I'm all for getting the IPR protection, but let's stop with putting useless things on TR.
Re: Quick update on WebIDL "Level 1"
> On 10 Jul 2016, at 16:35, Marcos Caceres 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
Re: Call for Consensus: Publish HTML 5.2 FPWD?
Reminder that this CFC closes on Thursday 14th July (end of day). If you can take a few minutes to respond through one of the three proposed channels, it will help us identify the work mode that suits the WG best. Thanks. Léonie. On 05/07/2016 15:15, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote: This is a call for consensus on the proposition: Publish the current editors' draft of HTML 5.2 - https://w3c.github.io/html/ - as a First Public Working Draft. Silence will be considered assent, but positive responses are preferred. In an effort to find a smoother way to assess consensus, there are three possible mechanisms for feedback, and you should pick the one you find most convenient: You can provide a response in this email thread. You can provide a comment or thumbs-up in the issue in the HTML repo - https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/515 You can provide a comment or thumbs-up in the issue in the WebPlatformWG repo - https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/issues/43 There is no need to use more than one of these mechanisms, as the chairs will collate the results. If many people use the issues instead of email, we will likely propose a change to the work mode for assessing consensus. There will be a separate thread on the merits of any procedural change - please *only* reply to this thread to support or oppose the FPWD publication. cheers Chaals, for the chairs
