Re: [admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?

[Rafael Weinstein]

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> 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>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>
>> On 2/27/14 12:10 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>
>> [[
>> Work 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 > href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/scripting-1.html#the-
>> template-element">HTML5.
>> ]]
>>
>> 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  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?

[Arthur Barstow]

On 3/12/14 10:27 AM, ext Rafael Weinstein wrote:

SGTM

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Yves Lafon > wrote:


On Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Arthur Barstow wrote:

On 2/27/14 12:10 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:

[[
Work 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 http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/scripting-1.html#the-template-element";>HTML5.
]]

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 
). 
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?

[Rafael Weinstein]

SGTM


On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Yves Lafon  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:
>>
>> [[
>> Work 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 http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/scripting-1.html#the-template-element
>> ">HTML5.
>> ]]
>>
>> 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?

[Yves Lafon]

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:


[[
Work 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 href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/scripting-1.html#the-template-element";>HTML5.

]]

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?

[Arthur Barstow]

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:


[[
Work 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 href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/scripting-1.html#the-template-element";>HTML5.

]]

WDYT?

-Thanks, Art

[1] 


On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Arthur Barstow 
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]






WDYT? Any objections?

(If we agree to publish a WG Note, I'll create it).

-Thanks, AB

[html-templates] 
[contacts-api] 

Re: [admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?

[Arthur Barstow]

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 > 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]






WDYT? Any objections?

(If we agree to publish a WG Note, I'll create it).

-Thanks, AB

[html-templates] 
[contacts-api] 

Re: [admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?

[Rafael Weinstein]

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 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]  spec/templates/index.html>
>
>
>
>
>> WDYT? Any objections?
>>
>> (If we agree to publish a WG Note, I'll create it).
>>
>> -Thanks, AB
>>
>> [html-templates] 
>> [contacts-api] 
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?

[Arthur Barstow]

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] 






WDYT? Any objections?

(If we agree to publish a WG Note, I'll create it).

-Thanks, AB

[html-templates] 
[contacts-api] 

Re: [admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?

[Charles McCathie Nevile]

On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 21:47:19 +0100, Arthur Barstow   
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

Re: [admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?

[Arthur Barstow]

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?

[Rafael Weinstein]

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  wrote:

> Sounds great to me.
>
> On Feb 26, 2014, at 6:43 AM, 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]).
> >
> > WDYT? Any objections?
> >
> > (If we agree to publish a WG Note, I'll create it).
> >
> > -Thanks, AB
> >
> > [html-templates] 
> > [contacts-api] 
> >
> >
>
>
>

Re: [admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?

[Ryosuke Niwa]

Sounds great to me.

On Feb 26, 2014, at 6:43 AM, 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]).
> 
> WDYT? Any objections?
> 
> (If we agree to publish a WG Note, I'll create it).
> 
> -Thanks, AB
> 
> [html-templates] 
> [contacts-api] 
> 
> 

[admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?

[Arthur Barstow]

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] 
[contacts-api]