Re: [admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?
SGTM On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Yves Lafon yla...@w3.org wrote: On Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 2/27/14 12:10 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: On 2/27/14 11:41 AM, ext Rafael Weinstein wrote: What do you recommend? It seems a little heavy-handed to kill it or gut it. What about putting a big-red warning at the top that it has been merged to HTML and no longer has normative weight. I don't have a strong preference now and would like to hear from others. The above do have different +/-. I think the principle of least surprise (`follow your nose`) indicates navigating to the ED would redirect to the HTML spec. It seems like the worst case scenario is for the contents of the ED to be inconsistent with HTML. Rafael, All - having received no additional feedback and only voices of support for publishing a WG Note, the main questions seem to be: 1) whether the Note should be gutted (f.ex. see [1]) or not; 2) should the ED be gutted too. Although I agree gutting the Note would be a bit heavy-handed as you say, it does eliminate the possibility of the contents being different than HTMLWG's version. As such, I prefer gutting both the Note and the ED and adding a prominent warning plus a link to HTML. For example, borrowing from [1], adding something like to the Status of This Document section: [[ strongWork on this document has been discontinued and it should not be referenced or used as a basis for implementation. The features previously specified in this document are now specified in a href= http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/scripting-1.html#the-template-element HTML5/a./strong ]] WDYT? SGTM, not gutting it has a higher risk of people looking at the wrong doc. -- Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras. ~~Yves
Re: [admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?
On 3/12/14 10:27 AM, ext Rafael Weinstein wrote: SGTM On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Yves Lafon yla...@w3.org mailto:yla...@w3.org wrote: On Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 2/27/14 12:10 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: [[ strongWork on this document has been discontinued and it should not be referenced or used as a basis for implementation. The features previously specified in this document are now specified in a href=http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/scripting-1.html#the-template-element;HTML5/a./strong ]] WDYT? SGTM, not gutting it has a higher risk of people looking at the wrong doc. OK, then unless I hear otherwise, at the end of this week I'll create a draft WG Note that is gutted and includes the info above (and put the draft Note in https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/file/default/publish/template/). I'll target a publication of March 18. Rafael - I will plan to update the ED too so please let me know if you prefer to do that. -Thanks, ArtB
Re: [admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote: On 3/12/14 10:27 AM, ext Rafael Weinstein wrote: SGTM On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Yves Lafon yla...@w3.org mailto: yla...@w3.org wrote: On Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 2/27/14 12:10 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: [[ strongWork on this document has been discontinued and it should not be referenced or used as a basis for implementation. The features previously specified in this document are now specified in a href=http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/scripting-1.html#the- template-elementHTML5/a./strong ]] WDYT? SGTM, not gutting it has a higher risk of people looking at the wrong doc. OK, then unless I hear otherwise, at the end of this week I'll create a draft WG Note that is gutted and includes the info above (and put the draft Note in https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/file/default/ publish/template/). I'll target a publication of March 18. Rafael - I will plan to update the ED too so please let me know if you prefer to do that. Go for it. Thanks for getting this cleaned up. -Thanks, ArtB
Re: [admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?
On Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 2/27/14 12:10 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: On 2/27/14 11:41 AM, ext Rafael Weinstein wrote: What do you recommend? It seems a little heavy-handed to kill it or gut it. What about putting a big-red warning at the top that it has been merged to HTML and no longer has normative weight. I don't have a strong preference now and would like to hear from others. The above do have different +/-. I think the principle of least surprise (`follow your nose`) indicates navigating to the ED would redirect to the HTML spec. It seems like the worst case scenario is for the contents of the ED to be inconsistent with HTML. Rafael, All - having received no additional feedback and only voices of support for publishing a WG Note, the main questions seem to be: 1) whether the Note should be gutted (f.ex. see [1]) or not; 2) should the ED be gutted too. Although I agree gutting the Note would be a bit heavy-handed as you say, it does eliminate the possibility of the contents being different than HTMLWG's version. As such, I prefer gutting both the Note and the ED and adding a prominent warning plus a link to HTML. For example, borrowing from [1], adding something like to the Status of This Document section: [[ strongWork on this document has been discontinued and it should not be referenced or used as a basis for implementation. The features previously specified in this document are now specified in a href=http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/scripting-1.html#the-template-element;HTML5/a./strong ]] WDYT? SGTM, not gutting it has a higher risk of people looking at the wrong doc. -- Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras. ~~Yves
Re: [admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?
On 2/27/14 12:10 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: On 2/27/14 11:41 AM, ext Rafael Weinstein wrote: What do you recommend? It seems a little heavy-handed to kill it or gut it. What about putting a big-red warning at the top that it has been merged to HTML and no longer has normative weight. I don't have a strong preference now and would like to hear from others. The above do have different +/-. I think the principle of least surprise (`follow your nose`) indicates navigating to the ED would redirect to the HTML spec. It seems like the worst case scenario is for the contents of the ED to be inconsistent with HTML. Rafael, All - having received no additional feedback and only voices of support for publishing a WG Note, the main questions seem to be: 1) whether the Note should be gutted (f.ex. see [1]) or not; 2) should the ED be gutted too. Although I agree gutting the Note would be a bit heavy-handed as you say, it does eliminate the possibility of the contents being different than HTMLWG's version. As such, I prefer gutting both the Note and the ED and adding a prominent warning plus a link to HTML. For example, borrowing from [1], adding something like to the Status of This Document section: [[ strongWork on this document has been discontinued and it should not be referenced or used as a basis for implementation. The features previously specified in this document are now specified in a href=http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/scripting-1.html#the-template-element;HTML5/a./strong ]] WDYT? -Thanks, Art [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/contacts-api/ On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: On 2/26/14 9:43 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi Robin, Dimitri, All, Since HTML Templates is now part of HTML5, to help avoid confusion, I think WebApps' last TR of the spec ([html-templates]) should be replaced with a WG Note that clearly indicates WebApps' work on the standalone spec has stopped and the feature is now part of HTML5. (The Note could also be void of any technical substance as DAP recently did f.ex. [contacts-api]). Dimitri, Rafael, Tony - there is also a question about the contents of the HTML Templates [ED]. What are you planning to do with it (delete it; remove the guts and link to HTML(5); something else)? -Art [ED] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/templates/index.html WDYT? Any objections? (If we agree to publish a WG Note, I'll create it). -Thanks, AB [html-templates] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-templates/ [contacts-api] http://www.w3.org/TR/contacts-api/
Re: [admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?
On 2/26/14 9:43 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi Robin, Dimitri, All, Since HTML Templates is now part of HTML5, to help avoid confusion, I think WebApps' last TR of the spec ([html-templates]) should be replaced with a WG Note that clearly indicates WebApps' work on the standalone spec has stopped and the feature is now part of HTML5. (The Note could also be void of any technical substance as DAP recently did f.ex. [contacts-api]). Dimitri, Rafael, Tony - there is also a question about the contents of the HTML Templates [ED]. What are you planning to do with it (delete it; remove the guts and link to HTML(5); something else)? -Art [ED] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/templates/index.html WDYT? Any objections? (If we agree to publish a WG Note, I'll create it). -Thanks, AB [html-templates] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-templates/ [contacts-api] http://www.w3.org/TR/contacts-api/
Re: [admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?
What do you recommend? It seems a little heavy-handed to kill it or gut it. What about putting a big-red warning at the top that it has been merged to HTML and no longer has normative weight. On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote: On 2/26/14 9:43 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi Robin, Dimitri, All, Since HTML Templates is now part of HTML5, to help avoid confusion, I think WebApps' last TR of the spec ([html-templates]) should be replaced with a WG Note that clearly indicates WebApps' work on the standalone spec has stopped and the feature is now part of HTML5. (The Note could also be void of any technical substance as DAP recently did f.ex. [contacts-api]). Dimitri, Rafael, Tony - there is also a question about the contents of the HTML Templates [ED]. What are you planning to do with it (delete it; remove the guts and link to HTML(5); something else)? -Art [ED] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/ spec/templates/index.html WDYT? Any objections? (If we agree to publish a WG Note, I'll create it). -Thanks, AB [html-templates] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-templates/ [contacts-api] http://www.w3.org/TR/contacts-api/
Re: [admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?
On 2/27/14 11:41 AM, ext Rafael Weinstein wrote: What do you recommend? It seems a little heavy-handed to kill it or gut it. What about putting a big-red warning at the top that it has been merged to HTML and no longer has normative weight. I don't have a strong preference now and would like to hear from others. The above do have different +/-. I think the principle of least surprise (`follow your nose`) indicates navigating to the ED would redirect to the HTML spec. It seems like the worst case scenario is for the contents of the ED to be inconsistent with HTML. -Art On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: On 2/26/14 9:43 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi Robin, Dimitri, All, Since HTML Templates is now part of HTML5, to help avoid confusion, I think WebApps' last TR of the spec ([html-templates]) should be replaced with a WG Note that clearly indicates WebApps' work on the standalone spec has stopped and the feature is now part of HTML5. (The Note could also be void of any technical substance as DAP recently did f.ex. [contacts-api]). Dimitri, Rafael, Tony - there is also a question about the contents of the HTML Templates [ED]. What are you planning to do with it (delete it; remove the guts and link to HTML(5); something else)? -Art [ED] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/templates/index.html WDYT? Any objections? (If we agree to publish a WG Note, I'll create it). -Thanks, AB [html-templates] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-templates/ [contacts-api] http://www.w3.org/TR/contacts-api/
[admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?
Hi Robin, Dimitri, All, Since HTML Templates is now part of HTML5, to help avoid confusion, I think WebApps' last TR of the spec ([html-templates]) should be replaced with a WG Note that clearly indicates WebApps' work on the standalone spec has stopped and the feature is now part of HTML5. (The Note could also be void of any technical substance as DAP recently did f.ex. [contacts-api]). WDYT? Any objections? (If we agree to publish a WG Note, I'll create it). -Thanks, AB [html-templates] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-templates/ [contacts-api] http://www.w3.org/TR/contacts-api/
Re: [admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?
Sounds great to me. On Feb 26, 2014, at 6:43 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: Hi Robin, Dimitri, All, Since HTML Templates is now part of HTML5, to help avoid confusion, I think WebApps' last TR of the spec ([html-templates]) should be replaced with a WG Note that clearly indicates WebApps' work on the standalone spec has stopped and the feature is now part of HTML5. (The Note could also be void of any technical substance as DAP recently did f.ex. [contacts-api]). WDYT? Any objections? (If we agree to publish a WG Note, I'll create it). -Thanks, AB [html-templates] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-templates/ [contacts-api] http://www.w3.org/TR/contacts-api/
Re: [admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?
No objections. It may be useful to mention in the note that the Template spec was merged to HTML (as opposed to simply becoming a concern of HTML, which might raise the question did HTML do something different than what this spec used to say?). On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: Sounds great to me. On Feb 26, 2014, at 6:43 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: Hi Robin, Dimitri, All, Since HTML Templates is now part of HTML5, to help avoid confusion, I think WebApps' last TR of the spec ([html-templates]) should be replaced with a WG Note that clearly indicates WebApps' work on the standalone spec has stopped and the feature is now part of HTML5. (The Note could also be void of any technical substance as DAP recently did f.ex. [contacts-api]). WDYT? Any objections? (If we agree to publish a WG Note, I'll create it). -Thanks, AB [html-templates] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-templates/ [contacts-api] http://www.w3.org/TR/contacts-api/
Re: [admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?
On 2/26/14 3:44 PM, ext Rafael Weinstein wrote: It may be useful to mention in the note that the Template spec was merged to HTML (as opposed to simply becoming a concern of HTML, which might raise the question did HTML do something different than what this spec used to say?). Yes, I agree merged is a key operative word we would want to communicate in the Note. -Thanks, AB
Re: [admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 21:47:19 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: On 2/26/14 3:44 PM, ext Rafael Weinstein wrote: It may be useful to mention in the note that the Template spec was merged to HTML (as opposed to simply becoming a concern of HTML, which might raise the question did HTML do something different than what this spec used to say?). Yes, I agree merged is a key operative word we would want to communicate in the Note. Agreed - and yes, this would be a good thing to do in general. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
