Re: W3C Charter Advance Notice: Web Platform (recharter) & Service Workers WGs

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:38 PM, L. David Baron  wrote:
> Also, for what it's worth, given offline feedback, I plan to support
> the Service Workers WG charter.  Apparently much of the discussion
> about service workers happens in WHATWG forums, but it still seems
> valuable to have the work happening in W3C, and it seems to be
> functioning reasonably.

That's only true for where Service Workers touches DOM, Fetch, and
HTML. There's a fair bit of tightly coupled parts between those four
standards, but everything that's specific to Service Workers happens
in the W3C GitHub as far as I know (there might be some occasional IRC
discussion in #whatwg on Freenode I suppose).


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: W3C Charter Advance Notice: Web Platform (recharter) & Service Workers WGs

[L. David Baron]

On Wednesday 2017-07-05 20:58 -0700, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On July 6, 2017 at 1:40:13 PM, L. David Baron (dba...@dbaron.org) wrote:
> > I've taken what you (Tantek) wrote and made minor changes to yield
> > the following Formal Objection to the Web Platform WG charter.
> 
> I support the updated formal objection. Thanks Tantek for drafting it.
> 
> I've raised these issues also here:
> https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/145
> 
> Where Domenic also pointed out that the following are being copy/pasted:
> 
> * Web Sockets API
> * Web Workers
> * HTML Canvas 2D Context
> 
> And the WG should cease to publish any errata for "specs under
> maintenance" (as those are all WHATWG, I think), except for
> "view-mode", which we should maybe consider asking them to obsolete.

To follow up here:  the deadline for this review was extended to
July 14 (Friday).  Thus I was able to update the objection, and it
now consists of the text below.  It could be further updated between
now and Friday if further changes are needed.

-David

=

We request that the charter drop all REC track specifications that
the WHATWG has demonstrated good maintenance of (as shown by active
implementer participation and implementation, including by Mozilla
in Firefox).

We would optionally like to see W3C republish the current versions
as a terminal NOTE, citing the WHATWG version as normative at the
top of the NOTE in large text as we would for any other abandoned
document for which better, more recent, or more accurate versions
exist elsewhere.

Particular specifications that we request WPWG drop from REC track
deliverables:

 * HTML5.2: at this point we are not aware of *any implementer*
   (people actually committing code to browsers) paying any
   practical (in that it affects code) attention to HTML5.2,
   especially to any differences between HTML5.2 and WHATWG HTML,
   despite having editors from Microsoft and Google.

 * microdata: as previously noted, WHATWG maintains microdata, and
   there is no need for any W3C time spent on this.

 * DOM 4 / DOM 4.1: likewise, the WHATWG maintains the DOM
   specification, and there is no need for W3C to duplicate that
   work.

 * Web Sockets API: likewise

 * Web Workers: likewise

 * HTML Canvas 2D Context: likewise

Likewise, we request that the maintenance of errata for these
specifications listed under "Specification Maintenance": 
DOM specifications
Progress Events
Server-sent Events
Web Storage
Web Messaging
be left to the WHATWG, which I believe is maintaining them.

Such duplication work by W3C WPWG is actively harmful in a number of
ways.

* It harms the relationship between W3C and WHATWG, both of which a
  number of organizations including Mozilla actively participate in.

* This active relationship harm provides unnecessary friction,
  discourages collaboration, and demonstrates either
  neglect or outright passive ill-will from one or more of
  chair(s)/staff of Web Platform WG toward WHATWG, which is
  unacceptable behavior (and counter to W3C PWE).

* Press and developers are continuing to be misled by the illusion
  that HTML5.2 is providing any kind of meaningful update to HTML,
  when meaningful updates (i.e., things that are implemented or
  fixed in browsers that web developers can then depend on) are only
  based on WHATWG HTML at this point.

-- 
턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
 What I was walling in or walling out,
 And to whom I was like to give offense.
   - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: W3C Charter Advance Notice: Web Platform (recharter) & Service Workers WGs

[Ben Kelly]

We have implementation close to review for one-shot sync.  I don't know of
any browser that has implemented and shipped periodic sync yet.

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:49 PM, L. David Baron  wrote:

> On Tuesday 2017-07-11 11:38 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> > On Wednesday 2017-07-05 11:02 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> > > On Friday 2017-05-12 15:58 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> > > > The W3C gave advance notice that 2 new charters are under
> > > > development:
> > > >
> > > >   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/
> 2017May/0006.html
> > > >   (which contains brief descriptions of what has changed)
> > > >
> > > >   Web Platform Working Group
> > > >   http://w3c.github.io/charter-html/webplat-wg.html
> > > >   https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/
> > > >
> > > >   Service Workers Working Group
> > > >   http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/sw-charter.html
> > > >   https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/
> > > >
> > > > Comments on these charters can be made in their respective github
> > > > repositories, or, if necessary, I can make comments that should be
> > > > made as statements "from Mozilla" on the Advisory Committee mailing
> > > > list.
> > >
> > > I realize I didn't repost when the official review started, but
> > > these charters are under a formal review whose deadline is today, as
> > > sent out in
> > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Jun/0002.html
> > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Jun/0003.html
> >
> > Also, for what it's worth, given offline feedback, I plan to support
> > the Service Workers WG charter.  Apparently much of the discussion
> > about service workers happens in WHATWG forums, but it still seems
> > valuable to have the work happening in W3C, and it seems to be
> > functioning reasonably.
>
> Though I think it may be worth looking a little bit more into
> Background Sync, which is a new addition to the Service Workers.
> Are we already involved in that work?  Is it something we support?
> (I'm particularly curious about periodicSync, which appears to add
> pretty substantial capability to run in the background, based on my
> reading of
> https://github.com/WICG/BackgroundSync/blob/master/explainer.md .)
>
> -David
>
> --
> 턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
> 턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
>  Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
>  What I was walling in or walling out,
>  And to whom I was like to give offense.
>- Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
>
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: W3C Charter Advance Notice: Web Platform (recharter) & Service Workers WGs

[L. David Baron]

On Tuesday 2017-07-11 11:38 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Wednesday 2017-07-05 11:02 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> > On Friday 2017-05-12 15:58 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> > > The W3C gave advance notice that 2 new charters are under
> > > development:
> > > 
> > >   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017May/0006.html
> > >   (which contains brief descriptions of what has changed)
> > > 
> > >   Web Platform Working Group
> > >   http://w3c.github.io/charter-html/webplat-wg.html
> > >   https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/
> > > 
> > >   Service Workers Working Group
> > >   http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/sw-charter.html
> > >   https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/
> > > 
> > > Comments on these charters can be made in their respective github
> > > repositories, or, if necessary, I can make comments that should be
> > > made as statements "from Mozilla" on the Advisory Committee mailing
> > > list.
> > 
> > I realize I didn't repost when the official review started, but
> > these charters are under a formal review whose deadline is today, as
> > sent out in
> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Jun/0002.html
> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Jun/0003.html
> 
> Also, for what it's worth, given offline feedback, I plan to support
> the Service Workers WG charter.  Apparently much of the discussion
> about service workers happens in WHATWG forums, but it still seems
> valuable to have the work happening in W3C, and it seems to be
> functioning reasonably.

Though I think it may be worth looking a little bit more into
Background Sync, which is a new addition to the Service Workers.
Are we already involved in that work?  Is it something we support?
(I'm particularly curious about periodicSync, which appears to add
pretty substantial capability to run in the background, based on my
reading of
https://github.com/WICG/BackgroundSync/blob/master/explainer.md .)

-David

-- 
턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
 What I was walling in or walling out,
 And to whom I was like to give offense.
   - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: W3C Charter Advance Notice: Web Platform (recharter) & Service Workers WGs

[L. David Baron]

On Wednesday 2017-07-05 11:02 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Friday 2017-05-12 15:58 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> > The W3C gave advance notice that 2 new charters are under
> > development:
> > 
> >   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017May/0006.html
> >   (which contains brief descriptions of what has changed)
> > 
> >   Web Platform Working Group
> >   http://w3c.github.io/charter-html/webplat-wg.html
> >   https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/
> > 
> >   Service Workers Working Group
> >   http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/sw-charter.html
> >   https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/
> > 
> > Comments on these charters can be made in their respective github
> > repositories, or, if necessary, I can make comments that should be
> > made as statements "from Mozilla" on the Advisory Committee mailing
> > list.
> 
> I realize I didn't repost when the official review started, but
> these charters are under a formal review whose deadline is today, as
> sent out in
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Jun/0002.html
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Jun/0003.html

Also, for what it's worth, given offline feedback, I plan to support
the Service Workers WG charter.  Apparently much of the discussion
about service workers happens in WHATWG forums, but it still seems
valuable to have the work happening in W3C, and it seems to be
functioning reasonably.

-David

-- 
턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
 What I was walling in or walling out,
 And to whom I was like to give offense.
   - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: W3C Charter Advance Notice: Web Platform (recharter) & Service Workers WGs

[Marcos Caceres]

On July 6, 2017 at 1:40:13 PM, L. David Baron (dba...@dbaron.org) wrote:
> I've taken what you (Tantek) wrote and made minor changes to yield
> the following Formal Objection to the Web Platform WG charter.

I support the updated formal objection. Thanks Tantek for drafting it.

I've raised these issues also here:
https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/145

Where Domenic also pointed out that the following are being copy/pasted:

* Web Sockets API
* Web Workers
* HTML Canvas 2D Context

And the WG should cease to publish any errata for "specs under
maintenance" (as those are all WHATWG, I think), except for
"view-mode", which we should maybe consider asking them to obsolete.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: W3C Charter Advance Notice: Web Platform (recharter) & Service Workers WGs

[Tantek Çelik]

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:10 PM, L. David Baron  wrote:
> I've taken what you (Tantek) wrote and made minor changes to yield
> the following Formal Objection to the Web Platform WG charter.

This looks good, appreciate your edits.

> Note
> that I added DOM 4 to the list, although perhaps there was a reason
> you didn't include it?

Being in a rush to catch a flight and somehow forgot W3C is still
publishing DOM4. Good catch.

Also, let's make our response officially public (cc www-archive)
beyond unofficially here on dev-platform.

Thanks,

Tantek

>
> -David
>
>
> We request that the charter drop all REC track specifications that
> the WHATWG has demonstrated good maintenance of (as shown by active
> implementer participation and implementation, including by Mozilla
> in Firefox).
>
> We would optionally like to see W3C republish the current versions
> as a terminal NOTE, citing the WHATWG version as normative at the
> top of the NOTE in large text as we would for any other abandoned
> document for which better, more recent, or more accurate versions
> exist elsewhere.
>
> Particular specifications that we request WPWG drop from REC track
> deliverables:
>
>  * HTML5.2: at this point we are not aware of *any implementer*
>(people actually committing code to browsers) paying any
>practical (in that it affects code) attention to HTML5.2,
>especially to any differences between HTML5.2 and WHATWG HTML,
>despite having editors from Microsoft and Google. It is unlikely
>that there are any patent/IP benefits to pursuing HTML5.2
>(whose features are already covered by HTML5 REC) at W3C.
>
>  * microdata: as previously noted, WHATWG maintains microdata, and
>there is no need for any W3C time spent on this.
>
>  * DOM 4 / DOM 4.1: likewise, the WHATWG maintains the DOM
>specification, and there is no need for W3C to duplicate that
>work.
>
> Such duplication work by W3C WPWG is actively harmful in a number of
> ways.
>
> * It harms the relationship between W3C and WHATWG, both of which a
>   number of organizations including Mozilla actively participate in.
>
> * This active relationship harm provides unnecessary friction,
>   discourages collaboration, and demonstrates either
>   neglect or outright passive ill-will from one or more of
>   chair(s)/staff of Web Platform WG toward WHATWG, which is
>   unacceptable behavior (and counter to W3C PWE).
>
> * Press and developers are continuing to be misled by the illusion
>   that HTML5.2 is providing any kind of meaningful update to HTML,
>   when meaningful updates (i.e., things that are implemented or
>   fixed in browsers that web developers can then depend on) are only
>   based on WHATWG HTML at this point.
>
> --
> 턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
> 턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
>  Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
>  What I was walling in or walling out,
>  And to whom I was like to give offense.
>- Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: W3C Charter Advance Notice: Web Platform (recharter) & Service Workers WGs

[L. David Baron]

I've taken what you (Tantek) wrote and made minor changes to yield
the following Formal Objection to the Web Platform WG charter.  Note
that I added DOM 4 to the list, although perhaps there was a reason
you didn't include it?

-David


We request that the charter drop all REC track specifications that
the WHATWG has demonstrated good maintenance of (as shown by active
implementer participation and implementation, including by Mozilla
in Firefox).

We would optionally like to see W3C republish the current versions
as a terminal NOTE, citing the WHATWG version as normative at the
top of the NOTE in large text as we would for any other abandoned
document for which better, more recent, or more accurate versions
exist elsewhere.

Particular specifications that we request WPWG drop from REC track
deliverables:

 * HTML5.2: at this point we are not aware of *any implementer*
   (people actually committing code to browsers) paying any
   practical (in that it affects code) attention to HTML5.2,
   especially to any differences between HTML5.2 and WHATWG HTML,
   despite having editors from Microsoft and Google. It is unlikely
   that there are any patent/IP benefits to pursuing HTML5.2
   (whose features are already covered by HTML5 REC) at W3C.

 * microdata: as previously noted, WHATWG maintains microdata, and
   there is no need for any W3C time spent on this.

 * DOM 4 / DOM 4.1: likewise, the WHATWG maintains the DOM
   specification, and there is no need for W3C to duplicate that
   work.

Such duplication work by W3C WPWG is actively harmful in a number of
ways.

* It harms the relationship between W3C and WHATWG, both of which a
  number of organizations including Mozilla actively participate in.

* This active relationship harm provides unnecessary friction,
  discourages collaboration, and demonstrates either
  neglect or outright passive ill-will from one or more of
  chair(s)/staff of Web Platform WG toward WHATWG, which is
  unacceptable behavior (and counter to W3C PWE).

* Press and developers are continuing to be misled by the illusion
  that HTML5.2 is providing any kind of meaningful update to HTML,
  when meaningful updates (i.e., things that are implemented or
  fixed in browsers that web developers can then depend on) are only
  based on WHATWG HTML at this point.

-- 
턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
 What I was walling in or walling out,
 And to whom I was like to give offense.
   - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: W3C Charter Advance Notice: Web Platform (recharter) & Service Workers WGs

[Tantek Çelik]

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:02 AM, L. David Baron  wrote:
> On Friday 2017-05-12 15:58 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
>> The W3C gave advance notice that 2 new charters are under
>> development:
>>
>>   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017May/0006.html
>>   (which contains brief descriptions of what has changed)
>>
>>   Web Platform Working Group
>>   http://w3c.github.io/charter-html/webplat-wg.html
>>   https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/
>>
>>   Service Workers Working Group
>>   http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/sw-charter.html
>>   https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/
>>
>> Comments on these charters can be made in their respective github
>> repositories, or, if necessary, I can make comments that should be
>> made as statements "from Mozilla" on the Advisory Committee mailing
>> list.
>
> I realize I didn't repost when the official review started, but
> these charters are under a formal review whose deadline is today, as
> sent out in
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Jun/0002.html
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Jun/0003.html

>From everything I understand we're ok with the Service Workers Working
Group moving forward.

Annevk, Marcos (cc'd) any additional thoughts?


For the Web Platform Working Group:

tl;dr: We should keep reiterating our Formal Objection until the
charter is changed to drop dupllication of specs that are being well
maintained by WHATWG. It's a waste of everyone (including ours) time
for such duplication.

Something with the substance of the following - feel free to reword
for terseness etc.:

Formal Objection:

We request dropping all REC track specifications that the WHATWG has
demonstrated good maintenance of (by evidence of active implementer
participation and implementation, including Mozilla in Firefox).

Optional: Republish current version as a terminal NOTE, citing the
WHATWG version as normative at the top of the NOTE in large text as we
would for any other abandoned document for which better / more recent
/ more accurate versions exist elsewhere.

Particular specifications that we request WPWG drop from REC track deliverables:
 * HTML5.2: at this point *no implementer* (people actually committing
code to browsers) are paying any practical (in that it affects code)
attention to HTML5.2, especially to any differences between HTML5.2
and WHATWG HTML, despite having editors from Microsoft and Google. It
is unlikely that there are any patent/IP benefits to pursuing HTML5.2
(existing features already covered by HTML5 REC) at W3C.
 * microdata: as previously noted, WHATWG maintains microdata, no need
for any W3C time spent on this.
* ... any others? (Annevk, Marcos?)

Such duplication work by W3C WPWG is actively harmful in a number of ways.

* It harms the relationship between W3C and WHATWG, both of which a
number of organizations including Mozilla actively participates in.

* This active relationship harm provides unnecessary friction as well
as disincentivizes collaboration and demonstrates either neglect or
outright passive ill-will from one or more of chair(s)/staff of Web
Platform WG toward WHATWG and that's unacceptable behavior (counter to
W3C PWE).

* Press and developers are continuing to be misled by the illusion
that HTML5.2 is providing
any kind of meaningful update to HTML, when meaningful updates (i.e.
things that are implemented or fixed in browsers that web developers
can then depend on) are only based on WHATWG HTML at this point.

* ... anything else? (again, Annevk, Marcos, explicitly soliciting
your additional input here)


Thanks,

Tantek
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: W3C Charter Advance Notice: Web Platform (recharter) & Service Workers WGs

[L. David Baron]

On Friday 2017-05-12 15:58 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> The W3C gave advance notice that 2 new charters are under
> development:
> 
>   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017May/0006.html
>   (which contains brief descriptions of what has changed)
> 
>   Web Platform Working Group
>   http://w3c.github.io/charter-html/webplat-wg.html
>   https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/
> 
>   Service Workers Working Group
>   http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/sw-charter.html
>   https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/
> 
> Comments on these charters can be made in their respective github
> repositories, or, if necessary, I can make comments that should be
> made as statements "from Mozilla" on the Advisory Committee mailing
> list.

I realize I didn't repost when the official review started, but
these charters are under a formal review whose deadline is today, as
sent out in
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Jun/0002.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Jun/0003.html

-David

-- 
턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
 What I was walling in or walling out,
 And to whom I was like to give offense.
   - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform