Re: Objection to publishing DOM Parsing and Serialization (was Re: CfC: publish LCWD of DOM Parsing and Serialization; deadline December 3)

[Arthur Barstow]

[ s/public-webapps-testsuite/public-webapps/ Uuugh ]

On 12/7/13 10:22 AM, ext Ian Jacobs wrote:

On Dec 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow  wrote:


[ + IanJ; Bcc public-w3process since this thread is an instance of issue-71; (see 
 for 
the head of this thread) ]

Ian, Yves,

Please explain why W3C staff insist the following information (that some WebApps consider 
"substantive") in the DOM Parsing and Serialization ED must be removed from the 
document  before it can be published as a Technical Report (and please provide the URL of 
the relevant `process doc/rules` that substantiates your rationale):

Hi Art,

It comes as news to me that some in WebApps consider the placement of that 
information substantive. You have asked for published guidance for these 
references, which I will provide.

Ian


[[


WHATWG Living Standard:
   http://domparsing.spec.whatwg.org/
]]

-Thanks, AB

On 12/6/13 2:04 PM, ext James Robinson wrote:

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Arthur Barstow mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com>> wrote:


Even worse is the removal of the reference to the source
specification, given that you know that this is a contentious
subject in this WG.


Both Travis and I supported keeping that information in the
boilerplate. The W3C Staff told us it must be removed before the
LC could be published as at TR. (FYI, I filed a related Issue
against the TR publication rules
. I think
the public-w3process list is an appropriate place to discuss the
Consortium's publication rules.)


If that's the requirement from the Team to publish as TR, then I object to 
publishing as a TR until the requirements are fixed.  If and when the 
publishing rules are fixed then we can consider proceeding again.

The spec text as currently exists is actively harmful since it forks the living 
standard without even having a reference to it.

- James



--
Ian Jacobs   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:  +1 718 260 9447

Re: Objection to publishing DOM Parsing and Serialization (was Re: CfC: publish LCWD of DOM Parsing and Serialization; deadline December 3)

[Arthur Barstow]

On 12/6/13 2:04 PM, ext James Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Arthur Barstow > wrote:



Both Travis and I supported keeping that information in the
boilerplate. The W3C Staff told us it must be removed before the
LC could be published as at TR. (FYI, I filed a related Issue
against the TR publication rules
. I think
the public-w3process list is an appropriate place to discuss the
Consortium's publication rules.)


If that's the requirement from the Team to publish as TR, then I 
object to publishing as a TR until the requirements are fixed.  If and 
when the publishing rules are fixed then we can consider proceeding again.


(I asked for an explanation on the publication requirements.)

The spec text as currently exists is actively harmful since it forks 
the living standard without even having a reference to it.


In case you missed it, the draft LCWD does include a reference to the 
WHATWG spec:


[[


This specification is based on the original work of the DOM Parsing and 
Serialization Living Specification , 
though it has diverged in terms of supported features, normative 
requirements, and algorithm specificity. As appropriate, relevant fixes 
from the living standard are incorporated into this document.

]]

-AB

Re: Objection to publishing DOM Parsing and Serialization (was Re: CfC: publish LCWD of DOM Parsing and Serialization; deadline December 3)

[James Robinson]

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

>
>  Even worse is the removal of the reference to the source specification,
>> given that you know that this is a contentious subject in this WG.
>>
>
> Both Travis and I supported keeping that information in the boilerplate.
> The W3C Staff told us it must be removed before the LC could be published
> as at TR. (FYI, I filed a related Issue against the TR publication rules <
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/71>. I think the
> public-w3process list is an appropriate place to discuss the Consortium's
> publication rules.)
>

If that's the requirement from the Team to publish as TR, then I object to
publishing as a TR until the requirements are fixed.  If and when the
publishing rules are fixed then we can consider proceeding again.

The spec text as currently exists is actively harmful since it forks the
living standard without even having a reference to it.

- James

Re: Objection to publishing DOM Parsing and Serialization (was Re: CfC: publish LCWD of DOM Parsing and Serialization; deadline December 3)

[Arthur Barstow]

On 12/6/13 7:40 AM, ext Ms2ger wrote:

On 11/26/2013 08:43 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

Earlier today Travis closed the last open bug for DOM Parsing and
Serialization so this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a LCWD of
that spec, using the following ED as the basis:



If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please send them to
public-webapps@w3.org by December 3 at the latest. Positive response is
preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement
with the proposal.


In the first place I'd like to note that I'm unhappy with the way this 
specification is being edited. 


If you mean the technical aspects, please do file bugs or send comments 
to public-webapps list.


The way it is explicitly trying to contradict the DOM standard is 
uncannily similar to the way DOM 3 Events did that (which, as you may 
remember, led to the WG deciding against those requirements). 


Please file bugs or send comments to public-webapps.

I don't think this specification has received sufficient review to 
call it LC-ready, especially given that there has not been any 
discussion of the changes before this CfC.


I view one of the main reasons for publishing a LCWD is to get wide review.


I also wish to strongly object to the following change:

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/rev/8f29e6f6eea2

which you made after the end of the CfC. I don't think it is 
appropriate to make such a change without requesting review. The 
change to the list of editors reverts bug 18935 [1], and incorrectly 
suggests that I am involved with this fork. 


I'm really sorry about that. I just removed your name from the Editors 
list in the Draft LC 
.


Even worse is the removal of the reference to the source 
specification, given that you know that this is a contentious subject 
in this WG.


Both Travis and I supported keeping that information in the boilerplate. 
The W3C Staff told us it must be removed before the LC could be 
published as at TR. (FYI, I filed a related Issue against the TR 
publication rules 
. I think the 
public-w3process list is an appropriate place to discuss the 
Consortium's publication rules.)


-ArtB



I therefore object to the publication of this specification in the 
current form.


Ms2ger

[1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18935

Objection to publishing DOM Parsing and Serialization (was Re: CfC: publish LCWD of DOM Parsing and Serialization; deadline December 3)

[Ms2ger]

Hi Art, all,

On 11/26/2013 08:43 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

Earlier today Travis closed the last open bug for DOM Parsing and
Serialization so this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a LCWD of
that spec, using the following ED as the basis:

   

If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please send them to
public-webapps@w3.org by December 3 at the latest. Positive response is
preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement
with the proposal.


(My apology for responding late, a single week is a rather short time 
for those of us who are not paid for this work.)


In the first place I'd like to note that I'm unhappy with the way this 
specification is being edited. The way it is explicitly trying to 
contradict the DOM standard is uncannily similar to the way DOM 3 Events 
did that (which, as you may remember, led to the WG deciding against 
those requirements). I don't think this specification has received 
sufficient review to call it LC-ready, especially given that there has 
not been any discussion of the changes before this CfC.


I also wish to strongly object to the following change:

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/rev/8f29e6f6eea2

which you made after the end of the CfC. I don't think it is appropriate 
to make such a change without requesting review. The change to the list 
of editors reverts bug 18935 [1], and incorrectly suggests that I am 
involved with this fork. Even worse is the removal of the reference to 
the source specification, given that you know that this is a contentious 
subject in this WG.


I therefore object to the publication of this specification in the 
current form.


Ms2ger

[1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18935