Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

[Arthur Barstow]

On 1/21/14 3:36 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
Although WebApps' current charter [Charter] does not expire until the 
end of May, since it can take a while to agree on a new charter 
(especially if new deliverables are proposed), I created a Draft 
[Draft] today. A diff of the current charter vs. the draft is 
available at [Diff].



Hi All,

Last week I checked in two changes to the [Draft] charter:

[1] Added a statement that the expectation is WebApps will be 
re-chartered after the 2014-2016 charter expires (this is intended to 
reinforce a related statement already in the charter.


[2] Philippe reminded me the Consortium's process requires a WG charter 
include "milestone" data so I added 5 "priority" specs that are 
dependencies for specs by other groups and included my best "guestimate" 
on these specs' next milestone. I also included a link to [PubStatus] 
and state it should be used for current status of all of WebApps' specs.


WebApps' current [Charter] has nine specs with milestones and none of 
our predictions for the REC milestone were accurate. Because of this, my 
original draft did not include any milestone data. Although I think 
milestone data should be useful, I only support adding data if there is 
a relatively good probability plus resource commitment(s) to meet the 
milestone.


Feedback on the new milestone data as well as proposals for other specs 
and their next milestone is welcome.


-Thanks, AB

[Draft] 
[1] 

[2] 





[Charter] 
[Draft] 
[Diff] 

Re: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: "W3C" XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

[Arthur Barstow]

On 1/27/14 10:48 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:

I'm wondering if we can change the group's work mode to not requiring CFCs for 
ordinary working drafts? Unless I'm not getting something, they seem to add an 
unnecessary delay to getting stuff published.

Hi Marcos,

Strictly speaking there is no requirement to record the group's 
consensus to publish a *plain* WD. However, given WebApps does [for all 
practical purposes] all of its technical work asynchronously and has a 
very broad set of specs, at least some [perhaps the majority?] of 
members don't follow every spec in detail (f.ex. tracking a spec's 
check-ins). As such, I think a CfC for these WDs is useful since it 
provides a heads-up to members the Editor(s) has made sufficient updates 
that they would like to publish a new TR. I (personally) don't follow 
every commit for every spec and tend to think the principle of least 
surprise suggests it wouldn't be especially inclusive for an Editor to 
unilaterally decide to publish a new TR.


That said, I'm certainly open for ways to reduce overhead and delays 
although in this case, since the XHR spec work started in 2006, I'm not 
sure a few days to give people a chance to review/comment before 
publishing a new WD really does constitute a [significant] "delay". 
(FYI, a quick scan of the group's mail archives shows about 12 CfC for 
plain WDs in 2013 among the group's 4K+ emails.)


If there is consensus a 7-day CfC to publish a plain WD is problematic, 
the duration of the CfC could be reduced. Another option would be for 
the Editor(s) to issue some type of "Intent to Publish new WD" and give 
people a few days for comments. Perhaps there are other options too but 
I do think we should have an expectation that group members are at least 
given a heads-up before a new WD is published.


Feedback from others is definitely encouraged!

-Thanks, AB

Re: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: "W3C" XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

[Jonas Sicking]

For specs that are passed FPWD, and thus where consensus to publish there
has been reached, this sounds like a good idea.

Though it might also be good to enable anyone to raise concerns about a
spec such that automatic WDs aren't published until concensus is reached
again.

/ Jonas
On Jan 27, 2014 7:49 AM, "Marcos Caceres"  wrote:

> Hi Art,
> I'm wondering if we can change the group's work mode to not requiring CFCs
> for ordinary working drafts? Unless I'm not getting something, they seem to
> add an unnecessary delay to getting stuff published.
>
> Kind regards,
> Marcos
>
> --
> Marcos Caceres
>
>
> On Monday, January 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Jungkee Song wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Arthur Barstow 
> >  art.bars...@nokia.com)> wrote:
> > > On 1/23/14 8:48 PM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:
> > > > I understand your concern. Indeed, we editors should have made it
> clearer providing updates on the status and more importantly a new TR.
> > > >
> > > > The goal of the snapshot version of the spec is clear. It aims to
> standardize all widely implemented parts of the spec that are compatibly
> supported across major implementations in a *timely* manner. Hence the
> number one to-do is to enhance the pass ratio of the test suite [1] by
> interacting with the implementors.
> > > >
> > > > We'd planned to publish LC with the Level 1 spec [2] in a near-term
> after the last TPAC but the changing publication policy recommends for us
> to take more conservative approach in publishing LC.
> > > >
> > > > That said, it seems necessary for us to publish a WD with [2] for
> now before we'll get ready with the test results good enough for publishing
> LC.
> > > >
> > > > Any comments would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the update Jungkee!
> > >
> > > I think your plan (to publish a WD now that will replace the 2012 WD
> and to continue to work toward a LC that is broadly and compatibly
> implemented) is good. Please let me know when you want me to start a CfC
> for the WD.
> >
> > We editors agreed with requesting a CfC to publish [2] as a WD. I'll
> request it as soon as I'm ready with a WD-ready version.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jungkee
> >
> >
> > > -Thanks, Art
> > >
> > >
> > > > [1] http://jungkees.github.io/XMLHttpRequest-test/
> > > > [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/xhr-1/Overview.html
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jungkee Song
>
>
>
>
>

Re: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: "W3C" XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

[Charles McCathie Nevile]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:48:18 +0100, Marcos Caceres  wrote:


Hi Art,
I'm wondering if we can change the group's work mode to not requiring  
CFCs for ordinary working drafts? Unless I'm not getting something, they  
seem to add an unnecessary delay to getting stuff published.


Yes, I strongly support that proposal.

There is no process requirement that there be a formal Call for Consensus  
for "heartbeat" drafts, and no barrier to a group adopting a general  
process of simply publishing them whenever the editors are ready.


cheers

Chaals


Kind regards,
Marcos




--
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
  cha...@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com

RE: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: "W3C" XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

[Domenic Denicola]

This sounds great. It would be cool if editors ping the relevant list as 
working drafts get updated, just so everyone can use the lists as an ambient 
feed of what's going on. But an actual CFC process seems unnecessary.



From: Jonas Sicking 
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 12:18
To: Marcos Caceres
Cc: public-webapps; Arthur Barstow
Subject: Re: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: "W3C" XHR, was Re: 
[admin] Draft of updated charter available for review


For specs that are passed FPWD, and thus where consensus to publish there has 
been reached, this sounds like a good idea.

Though it might also be good to enable anyone to raise concerns about a spec 
such that automatic WDs aren't published until concensus is reached again.

/ Jonas

On Jan 27, 2014 7:49 AM, "Marcos Caceres" 
mailto:w...@marcosc.com>> wrote:
Hi Art,
I'm wondering if we can change the group's work mode to not requiring CFCs for 
ordinary working drafts? Unless I'm not getting something, they seem to add an 
unnecessary delay to getting stuff published.

Kind regards,
Marcos

--
Marcos Caceres


On Monday, January 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Jungkee Song wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Arthur Barstow 
> mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com> 
> (mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com<mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com>)> wrote:
> > On 1/23/14 8:48 PM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:
> > > I understand your concern. Indeed, we editors should have made it clearer 
> > > providing updates on the status and more importantly a new TR.
> > >
> > > The goal of the snapshot version of the spec is clear. It aims to 
> > > standardize all widely implemented parts of the spec that are compatibly 
> > > supported across major implementations in a *timely* manner. Hence the 
> > > number one to-do is to enhance the pass ratio of the test suite [1] by 
> > > interacting with the implementors.
> > >
> > > We'd planned to publish LC with the Level 1 spec [2] in a near-term after 
> > > the last TPAC but the changing publication policy recommends for us to 
> > > take more conservative approach in publishing LC.
> > >
> > > That said, it seems necessary for us to publish a WD with [2] for now 
> > > before we'll get ready with the test results good enough for publishing 
> > > LC.
> > >
> > > Any comments would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks for the update Jungkee!
> >
> > I think your plan (to publish a WD now that will replace the 2012 WD and to 
> > continue to work toward a LC that is broadly and compatibly implemented) is 
> > good. Please let me know when you want me to start a CfC for the WD.
>
> We editors agreed with requesting a CfC to publish [2] as a WD. I'll request 
> it as soon as I'm ready with a WD-ready version.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Jungkee
>
>
> > -Thanks, Art
> >
> >
> > > [1] http://jungkees.github.io/XMLHttpRequest-test/
> > > [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/xhr-1/Overview.html
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jungkee Song

CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: "W3C" XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

[Marcos Caceres]

Hi Art, 
I'm wondering if we can change the group's work mode to not requiring CFCs for 
ordinary working drafts? Unless I'm not getting something, they seem to add an 
unnecessary delay to getting stuff published. 

Kind regards,
Marcos 

-- 
Marcos Caceres


On Monday, January 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Jungkee Song wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Arthur Barstow  (mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com)> wrote:
> > On 1/23/14 8:48 PM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:
> > > I understand your concern. Indeed, we editors should have made it clearer 
> > > providing updates on the status and more importantly a new TR.
> > > 
> > > The goal of the snapshot version of the spec is clear. It aims to 
> > > standardize all widely implemented parts of the spec that are compatibly 
> > > supported across major implementations in a *timely* manner. Hence the 
> > > number one to-do is to enhance the pass ratio of the test suite [1] by 
> > > interacting with the implementors.
> > > 
> > > We'd planned to publish LC with the Level 1 spec [2] in a near-term after 
> > > the last TPAC but the changing publication policy recommends for us to 
> > > take more conservative approach in publishing LC.
> > > 
> > > That said, it seems necessary for us to publish a WD with [2] for now 
> > > before we'll get ready with the test results good enough for publishing 
> > > LC.
> > > 
> > > Any comments would be appreciated.
> > 
> > Thanks for the update Jungkee!
> > 
> > I think your plan (to publish a WD now that will replace the 2012 WD and to 
> > continue to work toward a LC that is broadly and compatibly implemented) is 
> > good. Please let me know when you want me to start a CfC for the WD.
> 
> We editors agreed with requesting a CfC to publish [2] as a WD. I'll request 
> it as soon as I'm ready with a WD-ready version.
> 
> 
> Thanks, 
> Jungkee 
> 
> 
> > -Thanks, Art
> > 
> > 
> > > [1] http://jungkees.github.io/XMLHttpRequest-test/
> > > [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/xhr-1/Overview.html
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jungkee Song 

Re: "W3C" XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

[Jungkee Song]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> On 1/23/14 8:48 PM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:
>
>> I understand your concern. Indeed, we editors should have made it clearer
>> providing updates on the status and more importantly a new TR.
>>
>> The goal of the snapshot version of the spec is clear. It aims to
>> standardize all widely implemented parts of the spec that are compatibly
>> supported across major implementations in a *timely* manner. Hence the
>> number one to-do is to enhance the pass ratio of the test suite [1] by
>> interacting with the implementors.
>>
>> We'd planned to publish LC with the Level 1 spec [2] in a near-term after
>> the last TPAC but the changing publication policy recommends for us to take
>> more conservative approach in publishing LC.
>>
>> That said, it seems necessary for us to publish a WD with [2] for now
>> before we'll get ready with the test results good enough for publishing LC.
>>
>> Any comments would be appreciated.
>>
>>
> Thanks for the update Jungkee!
>
> I think your plan (to publish a WD now that will replace the 2012 WD and
> to continue to work toward a LC that is broadly and compatibly implemented)
> is good. Please let me know when you want me to start a CfC for the WD.
>
>
We editors agreed with requesting a CfC to publish [2] as a WD. I'll
request it as soon as I'm ready with a WD-ready version.


Thanks,
Jungkee




> -Thanks, Art
>
>
>  [1] http://jungkees.github.io/XMLHttpRequest-test/
>> [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/xhr-1/Overview.html
>>
>>
>


-- 

Jungkee Song

Re: "W3C" XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

[Arthur Barstow]

On 1/23/14 8:48 PM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:
I understand your concern. Indeed, we editors should have made it 
clearer providing updates on the status and more importantly a new TR.


The goal of the snapshot version of the spec is clear. It aims to 
standardize all widely implemented parts of the spec that are 
compatibly supported across major implementations in a *timely* 
manner. Hence the number one to-do is to enhance the pass ratio of the 
test suite [1] by interacting with the implementors.


We'd planned to publish LC with the Level 1 spec [2] in a near-term 
after the last TPAC but the changing publication policy recommends for 
us to take more conservative approach in publishing LC.


That said, it seems necessary for us to publish a WD with [2] for now 
before we'll get ready with the test results good enough for 
publishing LC.


Any comments would be appreciated.



Thanks for the update Jungkee!

I think your plan (to publish a WD now that will replace the 2012 WD and 
to continue to work toward a LC that is broadly and compatibly 
implemented) is good. Please let me know when you want me to start a CfC 
for the WD.


-Thanks, Art


[1] http://jungkees.github.io/XMLHttpRequest-test/
[2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/xhr-1/Overview.html

Re: "W3C" XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

[Marcos Caceres]

On Friday, January 24, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Jungkee Song wrote:

> >  
> > To be clear: I’m concerned that the last time the spec on TR was updated 
> > was in 2012. That seems like a big failure to me, specially as when you 
> > google for the spec, the on the TR comes up first. This means that most 
> > people are looking at a grossly outdated spec if they click on the first 
> > link.
> I understand your concern. Indeed, we editors should have made it clearer 
> providing updates on the status and more importantly a new TR.
> The goal of the snapshot version of the spec is clear. It aims to standardize 
> all widely implemented parts of the spec that are compatibly supported across 
> major implementations in a *timely* manner. Hence the number one to-do is to 
> enhance the pass ratio of the test suite [1] by interacting with the 
> implementors.
> We'd planned to publish LC with the Level 1 spec [2] in a near-term after the 
> last TPAC but the changing publication policy recommends for us to take more 
> conservative approach in publishing LC.
> That said, it seems necessary for us to publish a WD with [2] for now before 
> we'll get ready with the test results good enough for publishing LC.
> Any comments would be appreciated.
>  


Thanks Jungkee for the update - looking forward to seeing an updated WD on TR 
soon. It's good to see the progress in the test suite and that you guys have 
been following up there with the various browser vendors.

Re: "W3C" XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

[Jungkee Song]

On Jan 24, 2014 7:48 AM, "Marcos Caceres"  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > > I don't recall any discussions about stopping the current work,
although
> > > I think it would be useful if the group's XHR Editors would provide a
> > > short status and plan.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It would indeed be good. However, it would also be good to have a
broader discussion about what we do about the specs that have move to the
WHATWG (unless we already did that and I missed it). This whole snapshot
thing doesn’t feel like it’s working IMO.
>
> To be clear: I’m concerned that the last time the spec on TR was updated
was in 2012. That seems like a big failure to me, specially as when you
google for the spec, the on the TR comes up first. This means that most
people are looking at a grossly outdated spec if they click on the first
link.
>
>

I understand your concern. Indeed, we editors should have made it clearer
providing updates on the status and more importantly a new TR.

The goal of the snapshot version of the spec is clear. It aims to
standardize all widely implemented parts of the spec that are compatibly
supported across major implementations in a *timely* manner. Hence the
number one to-do is to enhance the pass ratio of the test suite [1] by
interacting with the implementors.

We'd planned to publish LC with the Level 1 spec [2] in a near-term after
the last TPAC but the changing publication policy recommends for us to take
more conservative approach in publishing LC.

That said, it seems necessary for us to publish a WD with [2] for now
before we'll get ready with the test results good enough for publishing LC.

Any comments would be appreciated.

[1] http://jungkees.github.io/XMLHttpRequest-test/
[2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/xhr-1/Overview.html

Re: "W3C" XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

[Marcos Caceres]

On Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:

> On Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > I don't recall any discussions about stopping the current work, although
> > I think it would be useful if the group's XHR Editors would provide a
> > short status and plan.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> It would indeed be good. However, it would also be good to have a broader 
> discussion about what we do about the specs that have move to the WHATWG 
> (unless we already did that and I missed it). This whole snapshot thing 
> doesn’t feel like it’s working IMO.  

To be clear: I’m concerned that the last time the spec on TR was updated was in 
2012. That seems like a big failure to me, specially as when you google for the 
spec, the on the TR comes up first. This means that most people are looking at 
a grossly outdated spec if they click on the first link.  

"W3C" XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

[Marcos Caceres]

On Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> I don't recall any discussions about stopping the current work, although
> I think it would be useful if the group's XHR Editors would provide a
> short status and plan.


It would indeed be good. However, it would also be good to have a broader 
discussion about what we do about the specs that have move to the WHATWG 
(unless we already did that and I missed it). This whole snapshot thing doesn’t 
feel like it’s working IMO.

Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

[Arthur Barstow]

[ Marcos, Alex - this is a resend because I had an error on WebApps' 
mail list address ]


On 1/21/14 5:30 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:

Quick notes, questions

Is "File API: Directories and System" dead? Looks kinda dead (last 
updated 07 March 2012).


Let's take this up separately.



Streams should not be part of File - it's a generic API for any data.

"UI Events" is linked to the wrong place.

Drop the "currently not supported by web standards." from Gamepad 
description... as it's a bit of an oxymoron to have a standard for a 
standard that's not supported as a standard... standard


Fixed in [MC].


Ooohhh! WebApps staking a claim over "Service Workers"! Nice


I thought that was WebApps` `agreed` plan. Alex, would you please 
clarify the expectations of ServiceWorkers and WebApps?



URL API should point to http://url.spec.whatwg.org/


My understanding is Chaals intends to work on it. (If anyone wants to 
help with the editing, please contact me and/or Chaals.)



Can we please put an end to this whole snapshot nonsense:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html


I don't recall any discussions about stopping the current work, although 
I think it would be useful if the group's XHR Editors would provide a 
short status and plan.


Maybe drop: "public-web-inte...@w3.org (archive) for discussion of the 
Web Intents specification"


Done in [MC].

The latest version of the Draft Charter [Draft] reflect [MC] plus 
comments from Cindy [CW] and Chaals [CMN].


-Thanks, AB

[Draft] 
[MC] 
 

[CW] 
 

[CMN] 
 

Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

[Marcos Caceres]

Quick notes, questions 

Is "File API: Directories and System" dead? Looks kinda dead (last updated 07 
March 2012). 

Streams should not be part of File - it's a generic API for any data. 

"UI Events" is linked to the wrong place. 

Drop the "currently not supported by web standards." from Gamepad 
description... as it's a bit of an oxymoron to have a standard for a standard 
that's not supported as a standard... standard :) 

Ooohhh! WebApps staking a claim over "Service Workers"! Nice :) 

URL API should point to http://url.spec.whatwg.org/

Can we please put an end to this whole snapshot nonsense:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html

Maybe drop: "public-web-inte...@w3.org (archive) for discussion of the Web 
Intents specification"

-- 
Marcos Caceres


On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> Although WebApps' current charter [Charter] does not expire until the 
> end of May, since it can take a while to agree on a new charter 
> (especially if new deliverables are proposed), I created a Draft [Draft] 
> today. A diff of the current charter vs. the draft is available at [Diff].
> 
> My intent was to reflect the current state of WebApps' work and I don't 
> think there are any major surprises.
> 
> Comments (as well as PRs) are welcome, especially if anyone has any 
> deliverables to propose.
> 
> -Thanks, ArtB
> 
> [Charter] 
> [Draft] 
> [Diff] 
> 

[admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi All,

Although WebApps' current charter [Charter] does not expire until the 
end of May, since it can take a while to agree on a new charter 
(especially if new deliverables are proposed), I created a Draft [Draft] 
today. A diff of the current charter vs. the draft is available at [Diff].


My intent was to reflect the current state of WebApps' work and I don't 
think there are any major surprises.


Comments (as well as PRs) are welcome, especially if anyone has any 
deliverables to propose.


-Thanks, ArtB

[Charter] 
[Draft] 
[Diff]