On Jun 26, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014, Glenn Adams wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Compraing implementations to anything but the very latest draft is not
only a waste of time, it's actively harmful to
From: Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com
Snapshotting a specification is valuable for implementors as well. If I
refer to a living standard page, then fragment ID or terminology used in the
specification may change in 5-10 years, and I would have no idea what kind of
specification the person
On Jul 2, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Domenic Denicola dome...@domenicdenicola.com
wrote:
From: Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com
Snapshotting a specification is valuable for implementors as well. If I
refer to a living standard page, then fragment ID or terminology used in the
specification may
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
There are other ways to mitigate these issues in addition to publishing every
revision of a given specification. For example, spec authors could list
support every historical terminology and fragmentation ever introduced.
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Jul 2, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
From: Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com
Snapshotting a specification is valuable for implementors as well.
If I refer to a living standard page, then fragment ID or
From: Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch
I've been reluctant to do so to avoid people ending up on obsolete versions
(e.g. by following links from old source code) and not realising what's going
on.
This is the danger, but I think an appropriately-annoying danger sign mitigates
it significantly.
I
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Domenic Denicola wrote:
From: Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch
I've been reluctant to do so to avoid people ending up on obsolete
versions (e.g. by following links from old source code) and not
realising what's going on.
This is the danger, but I think an
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
From: Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch
I was going to link to the picture spec as my favorite example, but they
seem to have made it less annoying (by moving it to the bottom instead of the
middle), which is sad.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014, Glenn Adams wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Compraing implementations to anything but the very latest draft is not
only a waste of time, it's actively
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014, Glenn Adams wrote:
For pointless certification purposes, you can use any random revision
of the spec -- just say what the revision number is and use that (and
honestly, who cares how well you implement that version -- it's not
like the testing process is going to
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014, Glenn Adams wrote:
For pointless certification purposes, you can use any random revision
of the spec -- just say what the revision number is and use that (and
honestly, who cares how well you
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014, Glenn Adams wrote:
Clearly we operate in different business regimes.
If we both operate on the same Web content, then I don't think that
matters, the interoperability issue is the same either way.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.
On 6/25/14 11:58 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
In the case of WebIDL, my personal preference would be to not spend
precious effort on WebIDL 1 CR, but instead to:
(1) publish WebIDL 1 CR as a WG Note without attempting to resolve
outstanding issues, other than by clearly annotating the existence of
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 6/25/14 11:58 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
In the case of WebIDL, my personal preference would be to not spend
precious effort on WebIDL 1 CR, but instead to:
(1) publish WebIDL 1 CR as a WG Note without attempting to
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Yves Lafon yla...@w3.org wrote:
I'm not a fan of shelving v1, I'd rather remove the ECMAscript binding from
v1 and keep only the syntax (v2 should contain everything as there are
additions to the syntax).
Because?
Who is going to supply resources for that?
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014, Glenn Adams wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Compraing implementations to anything but the very latest draft is not
only a waste of time, it's actively harmful to interoperability. At no
point should any implementor even
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 6/24/14, 1:05 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
Such device certification regimes cannot work unless the referenced
specifications are locked down and clearly implementable.
I see.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, at 10:45, Glenn Adams wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Marcos mar...@marcosc.com wrote:
Even if we were able to take the V1 bits to Rec (a lot of which is now
obsolete), the V2 stuff is already widely supported and heavily relied on
by browser vendors. IMO, it's
On 6/23/14 4:04 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
What is the plan, i.e., schedule timeline, for moving WebIDL to REC?
We have now a two year old CR that appears to be stuck and a 2nd
Edition that I'm not sure has made it to FPWD.
Hi Glenn, All,
I don't have any new info re v1 beyond what Boris said a
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:11:23 +0600, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, at 10:45, Glenn Adams wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Marcos mar...@marcosc.com wrote:
Even if we were able to take the V1 bits to Rec (a lot of which is now
obsolete), the V2 stuff is
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 22:05:55 +0100, Marcos mar...@marcosc.com wrote:
On June 23, 2014 at 4:07:09 PM, Glenn Adams (gl...@skynav.com) wrote:
What is the plan, i.e., schedule timeline, for moving WebIDL to REC?
The plan is based on an editor who is provided by Mozilla, but who is very
often
On 6/24/14, 6:56 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
While nobody is offering an editor who can get the work
done, this argument is in any case academic (unless the editor's
availability is predicated on the outcome, in which case it would be mere
political machinations).
I strongly disagree
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/24/14, 6:56 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
While nobody is offering an editor who can get the work
done, this argument is in any case academic (unless the editor's
availability is predicated on the outcome, in
On 6/24/14, 1:05 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
Such device certification regimes cannot work unless the referenced
specifications are locked down and clearly implementable.
I see.
So this is not about actual spec implementations or spec authors but
effectively about a QA cycle that compares the
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/24/14, 1:05 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
Such device certification regimes cannot work unless the referenced
specifications are locked down and clearly implementable.
I see.
So this is not about actual spec
On 6/24/14, 1:46 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
The primary goal of the W3C is to produce Technical Reports that reach a
stable level of maturity.
The Technical Reports are not an end in themselves. They're a means to
an end. This is why we don't produce Technical Reports that just say
do whatever
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/24/14, 1:46 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
The primary goal of the W3C is to produce Technical Reports that reach a
stable level of maturity.
The Technical Reports are not an end in themselves. They're a means to an
On June 24, 2014 at 2:33:41 PM, Glenn Adams (gl...@skynav.com) wrote:
They are. By having me test IDL features, by having me report
them to Cameron, by having me participate in this WG. Are you asking
if they can supply an editor? That would best be handled by having
the chairs issue
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Marcos mar...@marcosc.com wrote:
On June 24, 2014 at 2:33:41 PM, Glenn Adams (gl...@skynav.com) wrote:
They are. By having me test IDL features, by having me report
them to Cameron, by having me participate in this WG. Are you asking
if they can supply
On 24/06/14 20:50, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 6/23/14 4:04 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
What is the plan, i.e., schedule timeline, for moving WebIDL to REC?
We have now a two year old CR that appears to be stuck and a 2nd
Edition that I'm not sure has made it to FPWD.
Hi Glenn, All,
I don't have any
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote:
On 24/06/14 20:50, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 6/23/14 4:04 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
What is the plan, i.e., schedule timeline, for moving WebIDL to REC?
We have now a two year old CR that appears to be stuck and a 2nd
And also, I'd note that the general rough consensus from Google is that
/TR/ tend to be far less valuable than TRs in flight, so to speak.
Although I'm personally understanding of the need to checkpoint and have
firm targets for precisely the reason Glenn mentions, I'd point out that
the current
On 25/06/14 09:02, Arthur Barstow wrote:
OK, thanks for the update Cameron. Would you please remind us how the v1
bugs are designated at such?
With [v1] in the status whiteboard field of the bug. (There's still a
bunch of list email I need to go through and file bugs for so the list
will
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 6/24/14, 1:05 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
Such device certification regimes cannot work unless the referenced
specifications are locked down and clearly implementable.
I see.
So this is not about actual spec implementations or spec authors but
On June 23, 2014 at 4:07:09 PM, Glenn Adams (gl...@skynav.com) wrote:
What is the plan, i.e., schedule timeline, for moving WebIDL to REC? We
have now a two year old CR that appears to be stuck and a 2nd Edition that
I'm not sure has made it to FPWD.
Given the high degree of dependency
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Marcos mar...@marcosc.com wrote:
On June 23, 2014 at 4:07:09 PM, Glenn Adams (gl...@skynav.com) wrote:
What is the plan, i.e., schedule timeline, for moving WebIDL to REC? We
have now a two year old CR that appears to be stuck and a 2nd Edition
that
I'm
36 matches
Mail list logo
