Re: [websockets] Seeking comments on moving back to CR; deadline June 28
On 2012-06-29 05:55, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 6/21/12 4:53 PM, ext Julian Reschke wrote: On 2012-06-21 16:28, Arthur Barstow wrote: ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012AprJun/0880.html - This is an editorial bug and is already captured in Bug 12510. Ideally, this bug would be fixed before the v1 CR branch is created. However, if Hixie can't fix it before then and if no one else creates an acceptable patch for Hixie, I don't support blocking the v1 CR for this. ... I disagree that this is editorial. Yes I agree that editorial wasn't a particularly good characterization of bug 12510. Without proper references the spec simply is incomplete. Now that we have the URL spec in /TR/, it seems like that spec just needs to be added as a reference. That's necessary but not sufficient. When spec A references spec B, it should be obvious from the text; right now it is not. Best regards, Julian
Re: [websockets] Seeking comments on moving back to CR; deadline June 28
On 6/21/12 4:53 PM, ext Julian Reschke wrote: On 2012-06-21 16:28, Arthur Barstow wrote: ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012AprJun/0880.html - This is an editorial bug and is already captured in Bug 12510. Ideally, this bug would be fixed before the v1 CR branch is created. However, if Hixie can't fix it before then and if no one else creates an acceptable patch for Hixie, I don't support blocking the v1 CR for this. ... I disagree that this is editorial. Yes I agree that editorial wasn't a particularly good characterization of bug 12510. Without proper references the spec simply is incomplete. Now that we have the URL spec in /TR/, it seems like that spec just needs to be added as a reference. -AB
[websockets] Seeking comments on moving back to CR; deadline June 28
Hi All, I created a tracking document for the two comments and five bugs that were submitted against the 24 May LCWD of Web Sockets (or in the approximate time frame of that publication): http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Websockets-Comments-LC-24May2012. Below is my take on these bugs and comments. It would be good to get this spec back to CR and hence closer toward the IP commitments that will only be final when the spec reaches Recommendation. Bugs: * 17073 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17073 - marked as an Enhancement; don't include in the v1 CR * 17224 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17224 - this looks like an Editorial bug to me as I stated in the bug. Assuming there is consensus the text should be unsolicited pongs, if Hixie can't fix this before the v1 CR copy is created, I'll make this change in the v1 CR. * 17262 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17262 - Jonas' view as expressed in https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17262#c13 seems reasonable so I propose closing this with a resolution of WorksForMe. * 17263 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17263 - send(ArrayBuffer), which was included in the December 2011 CR, has been implemented and presumably must be supported by some browsers (e.g. bc/legacy reasons). As such, it seems reasonable to fix this bug and perhaps we could argue a new LCWD is not needed since it has already been implemented. * 17264 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17264 - this bug appears to be a rehash of bug 13104 which was Fixed in October 2011 so I propose closing this with a resolution of Duplicate. Comments: * LC-1 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012AprJun/0807.html - The 28-May-2012 reply by Takeshi Yoshino notes this is a Chrome bug and not a spec bug. The 1-June-2012 reply by Simon Pieters indicates the Protocol spec needs to be updated. As such, I don't think any changes are needed for v1 of the spec. * LC-2 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012AprJun/0880.html - This is an editorial bug and is already captured in Bug 12510. Ideally, this bug would be fixed before the v1 CR branch is created. However, if Hixie can't fix it before then and if no one else creates an acceptable patch for Hixie, I don't support blocking the v1 CR for this. Please send all comments by June 28. -Thanks, AB
Re: [websockets] Seeking comments on moving back to CR; deadline June 28
On 2012-06-21 16:28, Arthur Barstow wrote: ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012AprJun/0880.html - This is an editorial bug and is already captured in Bug 12510. Ideally, this bug would be fixed before the v1 CR branch is created. However, if Hixie can't fix it before then and if no one else creates an acceptable patch for Hixie, I don't support blocking the v1 CR for this. ... I disagree that this is editorial. Without proper references the spec simply is incomplete. If you disagree, please walk me through how a reader is supposed to find out what absolute URL or resolve the URL string means. Best regards, Julian
