Re: Where to discuss TR process issues? [Was: Re: [eventsource] Is Server-Sent Events ready for LC? ; deadline July 1
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:50:48 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote: So, rather than continuing to complain about this process on public-webapps, I would appreciate it if you would please move TR process type discussions to another Public list. I'm not asking to have a discussion about it at all; I'm asking that you stop trying to prioritise my work based on it. Hi Ian, in so far as the Web Apps group is currently chartered under the existing W3C process, and you are an editor of some specs under the terms of that charter, I find it hard to understand what us unreasonable about prioritising the work of the group (some of which you have volunteered to do) according to the existing agreements about how the group functions. For what it's worth, I am a member of the Advisory Board, and in that capacity I share some of your concerns. I, and I believe the advisory board as a whole, would appreciate you taking the time to make some proposals on process to that forum - a...@w3.org with a cc to e.g. www-archive if you want a public track. As an employee of a W3C member, you could also ask your member representative (TV Raman) to present concerns through the Advisory Committee forum. Whether you chose to do so or not, these issues are being followed in the relevant fora - but this group isn't really it. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Re: [eventsource] Is Server-Sent Events ready for LC? ; deadline July 1
On 7/6/11 5:49 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote: On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote: Do you oppose others submitting fixes to your spec bugs? If someone is interested in submitting fixes, they are welcome to contact me, so that I can work with them to work out how we can get something set up. There are a number of people who have done this (e.g. Aryeh's atob()/btoa() spec text, Ian Fette's adoption of the WebSockets protocol, Adam Barth's work on file type identification). Exactly how it should be done, and whether it's worth it to do it at all, depends on what kinds of edits we're talking about. Ian - OK; thanks for the clarifications. All - if you do work on any fixes with Ian, I think it would be good if there was a public record of the exchanges e.g. cc'ing public-webapps or www-archive. -AB
Re: [eventsource] Is Server-Sent Events ready for LC? ; deadline July 1
On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:16:55 +0200, Daniel Veditz dved...@mozilla.com wrote: The fix for the spec would be to drop the line Once the end of the file is reached, the user agent must dispatch the event one final time, as defined below. For clarity something explicit could be added If the end of the file is reached while collecting data and before encountering a blank line the incomplete event must not be dispatched. The ABNF in http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/#parsing-an-event-stream would also need updating. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [eventsource] Is Server-Sent Events ready for LC? ; deadline July 1
Thanks Anne and Dan. I added your comments to bug 13071. All - in addition to 13071, on July 6, Anne submitted 13155 and 13156 against this spec. Unless I hear otherwise, I assume the group wants to block LC until all of these bugs are addressed. As always, patches/fixes for open bugs are welcome (preferably as comments in the bugs). -AB On 7/6/11 4:52 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:16:55 +0200, Daniel Veditz dved...@mozilla.com wrote: The fix for the spec would be to drop the line Once the end of the file is reached, the user agent must dispatch the event one final time, as defined below. For clarity something explicit could be added If the end of the file is reached while collecting data and before encountering a blank line the incomplete event must not be dispatched. The ABNF in http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/#parsing-an-event-stream would also need updating.
Re: [eventsource] Is Server-Sent Events ready for LC? ; deadline July 1
On 7/6/11 1:55 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote: Any comments re the priority of this bug, in particular if it must be addressed before publishing a new LCWD? Can we please stop letting the LCWD/CR/PR process nonsense drive the prioritisation of the bug fixing process? This is getting ridiculous. (I will respond to the TR publication process issue separately with a different Subject:) Regarding the SSE spec, at least one WG member said moving the SSE spec to LC is important. As such, it seems appropriate (and not nonsense nor ridiculous) to then effectively ask the group (the To: on my e-mail included public-webapps too) is moving this spec to LC important enough for you to submit fixes for the open bugs?. I think we have other capable people in WebApps that can fix bugs and thus lighten your load. Do you oppose others submitting fixes to your spec bugs? -AB
Where to discuss TR process issues? [Was: Re: [eventsource] Is Server-Sent Events ready for LC? ; deadline July 1
Hi Hixie, On 7/6/11 1:55 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote: Any comments re the priority of this bug, in particular if it must be addressed before publishing a new LCWD? Can we please stop letting the LCWD/CR/PR process nonsense drive the prioritisation of the bug fixing process? This is getting ridiculous. I think we all realize you have issues with the W3C's TR process. I actually agree with some of your view points [at least as I understand them ;-)] and I think they should be discussed with a different set of people then WebApps. For instance, the so-called Advisory Board [AdvBrd] manages the evolution of the W3C Process Document, yet I suspect very few of them are subscribed to public-webapps. So, rather than continuing to complain about this process on public-webapps, I would appreciate it if you would please move TR process type discussions to another Public list. IJ, PLH - what Public list is appropriate for discussions about the TR process? -AB [AdvBrd] http://www.w3.org/2002/ab/
Re: [eventsource] Is Server-Sent Events ready for LC? ; deadline July 1
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote: Do you oppose others submitting fixes to your spec bugs? If someone is interested in submitting fixes, they are welcome to contact me, so that I can work with them to work out how we can get something set up. There are a number of people who have done this (e.g. Aryeh's atob()/btoa() spec text, Ian Fette's adoption of the WebSockets protocol, Adam Barth's work on file type identification). Exactly how it should be done, and whether it's worth it to do it at all, depends on what kinds of edits we're talking about. Merely checking things in to dev.w3.org will cause CVS conflicts when I next run the post-processing scripts. I don't recommend it. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: Where to discuss TR process issues? [Was: Re: [eventsource] Is Server-Sent Events ready for LC? ; deadline July 1
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote: So, rather than continuing to complain about this process on public-webapps, I would appreciate it if you would please move TR process type discussions to another Public list. I'm not asking to have a discussion about it at all; I'm asking that you stop trying to prioritise my work based on it. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: Where to discuss TR process issues? [Was: Re: [eventsource] Is Server-Sent Events ready for LC? ; deadline July 1
On 6 Jul 2011, at 2:41 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi Hixie, On 7/6/11 1:55 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote: Any comments re the priority of this bug, in particular if it must be addressed before publishing a new LCWD? Can we please stop letting the LCWD/CR/PR process nonsense drive the prioritisation of the bug fixing process? This is getting ridiculous. I think we all realize you have issues with the W3C's TR process. I actually agree with some of your view points [at least as I understand them ;-)] and I think they should be discussed with a different set of people then WebApps. For instance, the so-called Advisory Board [AdvBrd] manages the evolution of the W3C Process Document, yet I suspect very few of them are subscribed to public-webapps. So, rather than continuing to complain about this process on public-webapps, I would appreciate it if you would please move TR process type discussions to another Public list. IJ, PLH - what Public list is appropriate for discussions about the TR process? There is no list with a public archive. One thing to do is use process-issues and cc www-archive if you wish. Ian -AB [AdvBrd] http://www.w3.org/2002/ab/ -- Ian Jacobs (i...@w3.org)http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Re: [eventsource] Is Server-Sent Events ready for LC? ; deadline July 1
Since this thread was started, bug 13071 was filed against this spec (the only open bug): http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13071 Any comments re the priority of this bug, in particular if it must be addressed before publishing a new LCWD? Hixie - would you please provide a rough estimate re when you can address this bug? All - if anyone is willing to submit a fix for this bug, please send the fix to the list or add the fix to the bug. -AB On 6/24/11 7:33 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: Hixie, All, Ian responded [1] to the last set of Server-Sent Events comments I had noted, and Bugzilla now reports Zarro Boogs [2] for this spec (11835/Fixed, 11836/WontFix, 12411/Fixed, 12883/WontFix). As such, this raises the question if the spec is ready for Last Call Working Draft publication (see [3] for information about what it means for the spec to be LC ready). If you have any feedback on this question, please send it by July 1. The latest Editor's Draft is: http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ -AB [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/1079.html [2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=advancedshort_desc_type=allwordssubstrshort_desc=product=WebAppsWGcomponent=Server-Sent+Events+%28editor%3A+Ian+Hickson%29longdesc_type=allwordssubstrlongdesc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_file_loc=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=keywords_type=allwordskeywords=bug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDemailtype1=substringemail1=emailtype2=substringemail2=bug_id_type=anyexactbug_id=votes=chfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cmdtype=doitorder=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+timefield0-0-0=nooptype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0= [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0695.html
Re: [eventsource] Is Server-Sent Events ready for LC? ; deadline July 1
FWIW I'm going to push for the Mozilla implementation to dispatch only when an event is clearly terminated with a blank line (I filed the bug). If EOF is encountered w/out a blank line it should be considered an incomplete/corrupted event. The fix for the spec would be to drop the line Once the end of the file is reached, the user agent must dispatch the event one final time, as defined below. For clarity something explicit could be added If the end of the file is reached while collecting data and before encountering a blank line the incomplete event must not be dispatched. -Dan Veditz On 7/5/11 5:49 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Since this thread was started, bug 13071 was filed against this spec (the only open bug): http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13071 Any comments re the priority of this bug, in particular if it must be addressed before publishing a new LCWD? Hixie - would you please provide a rough estimate re when you can address this bug? All - if anyone is willing to submit a fix for this bug, please send the fix to the list or add the fix to the bug. -AB On 6/24/11 7:33 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: Hixie, All, Ian responded [1] to the last set of Server-Sent Events comments I had noted, and Bugzilla now reports Zarro Boogs [2] for this spec (11835/Fixed, 11836/WontFix, 12411/Fixed, 12883/WontFix). As such, this raises the question if the spec is ready for Last Call Working Draft publication (see [3] for information about what it means for the spec to be LC ready). If you have any feedback on this question, please send it by July 1. The latest Editor's Draft is: http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ -AB [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/1079.html [2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=advancedshort_desc_type=allwordssubstrshort_desc=product=WebAppsWGcomponent=Server-Sent+Events+%28editor%3A+Ian+Hickson%29longdesc_type=allwordssubstrlongdesc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_file_loc=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=keywords_type=allwordskeywords=bug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDemailtype1=substringemail1=emailtype2=substringemail2=bug_id_type=anyexactbug_id=votes=chfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cmdtype=doitorder=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+timefield0-0-0=nooptype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0= [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0695.html
[eventsource] Is Server-Sent Events ready for LC? ; deadline July 1
Hixie, All, Ian responded [1] to the last set of Server-Sent Events comments I had noted, and Bugzilla now reports Zarro Boogs [2] for this spec (11835/Fixed, 11836/WontFix, 12411/Fixed, 12883/WontFix). As such, this raises the question if the spec is ready for Last Call Working Draft publication (see [3] for information about what it means for the spec to be LC ready). If you have any feedback on this question, please send it by July 1. The latest Editor's Draft is: http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ -AB [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/1079.html [2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=advancedshort_desc_type=allwordssubstrshort_desc=product=WebAppsWGcomponent=Server-Sent+Events+%28editor%3A+Ian+Hickson%29longdesc_type=allwordssubstrlongdesc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_file_loc=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=keywords_type=allwordskeywords=bug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDemailtype1=substringemail1=emailtype2=substringemail2=bug_id_type=anyexactbug_id=votes=chfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cmdtype=doitorder=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+timefield0-0-0=nooptype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0= [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0695.html
