Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-21 Thread Arthur Barstow
On 9/21/15 5:54 AM, Ms2ger wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/21/2015 11:05 AM, Xiaoqian Wu wrote: If it helps, I’d like to prepare a Workers draft to revise the previous CR, and schedule the publication ASAP (hopefully 22 Sep). The goal is to synchronise with the

Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-21 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 9/21/15 5:54 AM, Ms2ger wrote: >> Why? > > I think the rationale was mentioned in > . Ms2ger made a valid point. Workers is actively being

Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-21 Thread Ms2ger
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/21/2015 11:05 AM, Xiaoqian Wu wrote: > If it helps, I’d like to prepare a Workers draft to revise the > previous CR, and schedule the publication ASAP (hopefully 22 Sep). > The goal is to synchronise with the upstream, to document the >

Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-21 Thread Xiaoqian Wu
> On 22 Sep, 2015, at 1:35 am, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> On 9/21/15 5:54 AM, Ms2ger wrote: >>> Why? >> >> I think the rationale was mentioned in >>

RE: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-21 Thread Domenic Denicola
From: Xiaoqian Wu [mailto:xiaoq...@w3.org] > If the spec is still changing frequently, indeed it isn't a good idea to > publish another CR… but the WebApps WG needs to clearly tell the community > that the 2012 CR should be considered obsolete. > > I’d suggest that we publish a WD for

Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-21 Thread Xiaoqian Wu
> On 16 Sep, 2015, at 8:17 pm, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > On 9/16/15 4:47 AM, Mike West wrote: >> Note that this is an issue that's going to come up for a number of WebAppSec >> specs (see >> https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/#issue-a30f61b8 >>

Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-16 Thread Arthur Barstow
On 9/16/15 4:47 AM, Mike West wrote: Note that this is an issue that's going to come up for a number of WebAppSec specs (see https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/#issue-a30f61b8 , for instance (and that

Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-15 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Mike West wrote: > The "Upgrade Insecure Requests" specification[1] references the WHATWG HTML > spec for the > "set up a worker environment settings object" algorithm[2], as the Web > Workers Candidate Recommendation from May 2012[3]

Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-15 Thread Mike West
The "Upgrade Insecure Requests" specification[1] references the WHATWG HTML spec for the "set up a worker environment settings object" algorithm[2], as the Web Workers Candidate Recommendation from May 2012[3] substantially predates the entire concept of a "settings object", and because the WHATWG

Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-15 Thread Ian Hickson
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Mike West wrote: > > It seems appropriate, then, to bring the question to this group: does > WebApps intend to update the Workers draft in TR? FWIW, I think the W3C should get out of the business of republishing WHATWG specifications. It's just adding confusion, especially

Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-15 Thread Daniel Veditz
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > ​there's nothing wrong with reffing WHATWG specs. It will not delay > ​ or hamper​ > > publication or Rec-track advancement, despite the > ​ occasional misinformed​ > > complaint from someone not aware of the > ​ ​

Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-15 Thread Philippe Le Hegaret
On 09/15/2015 03:26 PM, Daniel Veditz wrote: On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. > wrote: ​there's nothing wrong with reffing WHATWG specs. It will not delay ​ or hamper​ publication or Rec-track advancement, despite