Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21

[Michael[tm] Smith]

Julian Reschke , 2012-02-01 12:25 +0100:

> On 2012-01-03 13:39, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> >On 12/29/11 8:48 AM, ext Julian Reschke wrote:
> >>I note that
> >>
> >>claims this was addressed but it was not.
> >>
> >>(In the meantime the reference additionally is out-of-date as RFC 6455
> >>has been published a few days later, and not waiting with publishing
> >>the CR is a sort-of embarasssing #FAIL of W3C/IETF coordination).
> >
> >The above is captured in bug 15400.
> 
> But apparently hard to fix.

Not hard, but just slipped through the cracks until now due to it not
getting on my radar. But it's fixed in CVS now, and the spec should get
regenerated within the next couple of days.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/+

Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21

[Julian Reschke]

On 2012-01-03 13:39, Arthur Barstow wrote:

On 12/29/11 8:48 AM, ext Julian Reschke wrote:

I note that

claims this was addressed but it was not.

(In the meantime the reference additionally is out-of-date as RFC 6455
has been published a few days later, and not waiting with publishing
the CR is a sort-of embarasssing #FAIL of W3C/IETF coordination).


The above is captured in bug 15400.


But apparently hard to fix.

Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21

[Arthur Barstow]

On 12/29/11 8:48 AM, ext Julian Reschke wrote:
I note that 
 
claims this was addressed but it was not.


(In the meantime the reference additionally is out-of-date as RFC 6455 
has been published a few days later, and not waiting with publishing 
the CR is a sort-of embarasssing #FAIL of W3C/IETF coordination).


The above is captured in bug 15400.

-AB

Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21

[Julian Reschke]

On 2011-09-30 10:26, Julian Reschke wrote:

On 2011-09-29 18:28, Arthur Barstow wrote:

On September 29, aLCWD of Web Sockets API was published:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-websockets-20110929/

Please send all comments to public-webapps@w3.org by October 21.


The reference for the Websocket Protocol (WSP) needs an updated author
list.
...


I note that 
 
claims this was addressed but it was not.


(In the meantime the reference additionally is out-of-date as RFC 6455 
has been published a few days later, and not waiting with publishing the 
CR is a sort-of embarasssing #FAIL of W3C/IETF coordination).


Best regards, Julian

Re: Spec changes for LCs and later maturity levels [Was: Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21]

[Julian Reschke]

On 2011-10-14 15:14, Julian Reschke wrote:

On 2011-10-11 00:30, Ian Hickson wrote:

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:

On 10/7/11 8:32 AM, ext Julian Reschke wrote:

As far as I recall, we agreed in the IETF WG that parsing of web
socket URIs
should work exactly the same way as for any other URI scheme. It
appears
that the API spec now tries to override this, and this looks
problematic to
me.

On 10/7/11 9:30 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:

In [1], Julian asks about Web Socket API rev 1.247 [2], the change
that adds

the Parsing WebSocket URLs section (CVS comment "Revert the part of
r5409 that
removed the URL parsing algorithms, since it's no longer defined in the
protocol spec. (whatwg r6632)").


Would you please elaborate on this change?


On 10/7/11 11:28 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:

Elaborate in what way?


Why is the override in 1.247 needed, given what Julian indicates above?


There's no override. It's just defining how you do it because nothing
else
defines it.


As far as I can tell, it's a mix of things repeated from
,
things that may be useful, and things that do not make sense at all.

In particular:

"Resolve the url string, with the URL character encoding set to UTF-8.
[RFC3629]"

"Resolve" is undefined as far as I can tell, in particular it's not
clear at all what "URL character encoding" means in this context.

Best regards, Julian


So can anybody explain (1) why this text is in the spec, and (2) what it 
means?


Thanks, Julian

Re: Spec changes for LCs and later maturity levels [Was: Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21]

[Julian Reschke]

On 2011-10-11 00:30, Ian Hickson wrote:

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:

On 10/7/11 8:32 AM, ext Julian Reschke wrote:

As far as I recall, we agreed in the IETF WG that parsing of web socket URIs
should work exactly the same way as for any other URI scheme. It appears
that the API spec now tries to override this, and this looks problematic to
me.

On 10/7/11 9:30 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:

In [1], Julian asks about Web Socket API rev 1.247 [2], the change that adds

the Parsing WebSocket URLs section (CVS comment "Revert the part of r5409 that
removed the URL parsing algorithms, since it's no longer defined in the
protocol spec. (whatwg r6632)").


Would you please elaborate on this change?


On 10/7/11 11:28 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:

Elaborate in what way?


Why is the override in 1.247 needed, given what Julian indicates above?


There's no override. It's just defining how you do it because nothing else
defines it.


As far as I can tell, it's a mix of things repeated from 
, 
things that may be useful, and things that do not make sense at all.


In particular:

"Resolve the url string, with the URL character encoding set to UTF-8. 
[RFC3629]"


"Resolve" is undefined as far as I can tell, in particular it's not 
clear at all what "URL character encoding" means in this context.


Best regards, Julian

Reminder: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21

[Arthur Barstow]

 Original Message 
Subject:RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21
Resent-Date:Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:29:15 +
Resent-From:
Date:   Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:28:29 -0400
From:   ext Arthur Barstow 
To: public-webapps 



On September 29, aLCWD of Web Sockets API was published:

  http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-websockets-20110929/

Please send all comments to public-webapps@w3.org by October 21.

Re: Spec changes for LCs and later maturity levels [Was: Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21]

[Ian Hickson]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 10/7/11 8:32 AM, ext Julian Reschke wrote:
> > As far as I recall, we agreed in the IETF WG that parsing of web socket URIs
> > should work exactly the same way as for any other URI scheme. It appears
> > that the API spec now tries to override this, and this looks problematic to
> > me.
> On 10/7/11 9:30 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > In [1], Julian asks about Web Socket API rev 1.247 [2], the change that adds
> the Parsing WebSocket URLs section (CVS comment "Revert the part of r5409 that
> removed the URL parsing algorithms, since it's no longer defined in the
> protocol spec. (whatwg r6632)").
> >
> > Would you please elaborate on this change?
> 
> On 10/7/11 11:28 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
> > Elaborate in what way?
> 
> Why is the override in 1.247 needed, given what Julian indicates above?

There's no override. It's just defining how you do it because nothing else 
defines it.

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Re: Spec changes for LCs and later maturity levels [Was: Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21]

[Arthur Barstow]

On 10/7/11 8:32 AM, ext Julian Reschke wrote:
As far as I recall, we agreed in the IETF WG that parsing of web 
socket URIs should work exactly the same way as for any other URI 
scheme. It appears that the API spec now tries to override this, and 
this looks problematic to me.

On 10/7/11 9:30 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
> In [1], Julian asks about Web Socket API rev 1.247 [2], the change 
that adds the Parsing WebSocket URLs section (CVS comment "Revert the 
part of r5409 that removed the URL parsing algorithms, since it's no 
longer defined in the protocol spec. (whatwg r6632)").

>
> Would you please elaborate on this change?

On 10/7/11 11:28 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
> Elaborate in what way?

Why is the override in 1.247 needed, given what Julian indicates above?

Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21

[Ian Hickson]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> 
> Would you please elaborate on this change?

Elaborate in what way?

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Hixie,

In [1], Julian asks about Web Socket API rev 1.247 [2], the change that 
adds the Parsing WebSocket URLs section (CVS comment "Revert the part of 
r5409 that removed the URL parsing algorithms, since it's no longer 
defined in the protocol spec. (whatwg r6632)").


Would you please elaborate on this change?

-AB

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0125.html
[2] 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/websockets/Overview.html.diff?r1=1.246;r2=1.247;f=h


On 10/5/11 3:15 AM, ext Julian Reschke wrote:

On 2011-09-29 18:28, Arthur Barstow wrote:

On September 29, aLCWD of Web Sockets API was published:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-websockets-20110929/

Please send all comments to public-webapps@w3.org by October 21.


I just noted that as of yesterday, the API spec contains the custom 
URI parsing algorithm that we removed from the protocol spec a long 
time ago.


This was a post-LC change.

What's the Webapps WG's procedure to manage changes during LC?

Best regards, Julian

Re: Spec changes for LCs and later maturity levels [Was: Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21]

[Julian Reschke]

On 2011-10-07 13:55, Arthur Barstow wrote:

Hi Julian, All - I changed the subject to reflect the general
process-related issue here. I will respond separately to the WebSocket
specifics ...

WebApps has always used the Edit First, Review Second process, as
documented in our [WorkMode] document.

Overall, I think the process has worked reasonably well, yet it can
create some challenges, especially as a spec enters the later maturity
levels i.e. LC and later.

For specs in LC or later, I think the Editor(s) should feel free to make
minor changes e.g. editorial changes and bug fixes that would not
invalidate an implementation, without any explicit notification to the
group. However, for major changes e.g. a new feature or a bug fix that
would affect an implementation, I think it is reasonable to expect the
Editor(s) to make some type of explicit notification and that could be
done via an e-mail, bug report, new issue (e.g. Tracker), etc.
...


OK, so it would be helpful to understand whether the change I noticed 
(adding a section about ws-specific URL parsing that was removed from 
the protocol spec) is considered editorial or a bug fix.


As far as I recall, we agreed in the IETF WG that parsing of web socket 
URIs should work exactly the same way as for any other URI scheme. It 
appears that the API spec now tries to override this, and this looks 
problematic to me.


Best regards, Julian

Spec changes for LCs and later maturity levels [Was: Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21]

[Arthur Barstow]

On 10/5/11 3:15 AM, ext Julian Reschke wrote:

On 2011-09-29 18:28, Arthur Barstow wrote:

On September 29, aLCWD of Web Sockets API was published:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-websockets-20110929/

Please send all comments to public-webapps@w3.org by October 21.


I just noted that as of yesterday, the API spec contains the custom 
URI parsing algorithm that we removed from the protocol spec a long 
time ago.


This was a post-LC change.

What's the Webapps WG's procedure to manage changes during LC?
Hi Julian, All - I changed the subject to reflect the general 
process-related issue here. I will respond separately to the WebSocket 
specifics ...


WebApps has always used the Edit First, Review Second process, as 
documented in our [WorkMode] document.


Overall, I think the process has worked reasonably well, yet it can 
create some challenges, especially as a spec enters the later maturity 
levels i.e. LC and later.


For specs in LC or later, I think the Editor(s) should feel free to make 
minor changes e.g. editorial changes and bug fixes that would not 
invalidate an implementation, without any explicit notification to the 
group. However, for major changes e.g. a new feature or a bug fix that 
would affect an implementation, I think it is reasonable to expect the 
Editor(s) to make some type of explicit notification and that could be 
done via an e-mail, bug report, new issue (e.g. Tracker), etc.


Some groups have defined relatively detailed processes for handling 
changes to specs at LC and later. My expectation is that everyone is 
participating with the best of intentions, and as such, I would prefer 
to not be overly prescriptive with the group's change process.


If others have additional or contrary thoughts about how the group 
should handle spec changes for specs at LC or later, please speak up.


-Art Barstow

[WorkMode] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WorkMode

Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:15:45 +0200, Julian Reschke   
wrote:

What's the Webapps WG's procedure to manage changes during LC?


We have another Last Call.


--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21

[Julian Reschke]

On 2011-09-29 18:28, Arthur Barstow wrote:

On September 29, aLCWD of Web Sockets API was published:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-websockets-20110929/

Please send all comments to public-webapps@w3.org by October 21.


I just noted that as of yesterday, the API spec contains the custom URI 
parsing algorithm that we removed from the protocol spec a long time ago.


This was a post-LC change.

What's the Webapps WG's procedure to manage changes during LC?

Best regards, Julian

Re: Biblio references and authors Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21

[Marcos Caceres]

On Friday, September 30, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2011-09-30 10:37, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Friday, September 30, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > 
> > > On 2011-09-29 18:28, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > > > On September 29, aLCWD of Web Sockets API was published:
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-websockets-20110929/
> > > > 
> > > > Please send all comments to public-webapps@w3.org 
> > > > (mailto:public-webapps@w3.org) by October 21.
> > > 
> > > The reference for the Websocket Protocol (WSP) needs an updated author 
> > > list.
> > Might be good if we stop including the name of authors in the references 
> > (because they do tend to change quite a bit over time). The reference 
> > document is hyperlinked, so what is the use case for including the author 
> > in a reference? I only see (very limited) value in stating if something is 
> > a work in progress, and the name of the organization that produced the 
> > document.
> 
> Well, I think it's a matter of good style to actually cite properly. (I 
> guess some value of "properly" should be defined for W3C specs). YMMV.
All that matters is being able to get to the spec you are referencing - and for 
that all you need is a hyperlink. Everything else is pointless fluff, AFAICT. 
Names, dates, etc. is just a carry over from the pre-Web dark ages, where you 
actually needed to know who wrote the document so you could search in database 
to find the printed version in some physical library. None of the specs we 
reference are on printed on dead organic material, so lets cast away this silly 
archaic practice of including authors. 

Re: Biblio references and authors Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21

[Julian Reschke]

On 2011-09-30 10:37, Marcos Caceres wrote:



On Friday, September 30, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:


On 2011-09-29 18:28, Arthur Barstow wrote:

On September 29, aLCWD of Web Sockets API was published:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-websockets-20110929/

Please send all comments to public-webapps@w3.org 
(mailto:public-webapps@w3.org) by October 21.


The reference for the Websocket Protocol (WSP) needs an updated author list.

Might be good if we stop including the name of authors in the references 
(because they do tend to change quite a bit over time). The reference document 
is hyperlinked, so what is the use case for including the author in a 
reference? I only see (very limited) value in stating if something is a work in 
progress, and the name of the organization that produced the document.


Well, I think it's a matter of good style to actually cite properly. (I 
guess some value of "properly" should be defined for W3C specs). YMMV.


Best regards, Julian

Re: Biblio references and authors Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:37:24 +0200, Marcos Caceres  wrote:
Might be good if we stop including the name of authors in the references  
(because they do tend to change quite a bit over time). The reference  
document is hyperlinked, so what is the use case for including the  
author in a reference? I only see (very limited) value in stating if  
something is a work in progress, and the name of the organization that  
produced the document.


Probably more value in the author than the organization or whether it is  
finished or not, indeed. But I would be fine with just a title and URL.  
Updating references is a pain. The reminder emails are even worse.



--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/

Biblio references and authors Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21

[Marcos Caceres]

On Friday, September 30, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2011-09-29 18:28, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > On September 29, aLCWD of Web Sockets API was published:
> > 
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-websockets-20110929/
> > 
> > Please send all comments to public-webapps@w3.org 
> > (mailto:public-webapps@w3.org) by October 21.
> 
> The reference for the Websocket Protocol (WSP) needs an updated author list.
Might be good if we stop including the name of authors in the references 
(because they do tend to change quite a bit over time). The reference document 
is hyperlinked, so what is the use case for including the author in a 
reference? I only see (very limited) value in stating if something is a work in 
progress, and the name of the organization that produced the document.

Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21

[Julian Reschke]

On 2011-09-29 18:28, Arthur Barstow wrote:

On September 29, aLCWD of Web Sockets API was published:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-websockets-20110929/

Please send all comments to public-webapps@w3.org by October 21.


The reference for the Websocket Protocol (WSP) needs an updated author list.

Best regards, Julian

RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21

[Arthur Barstow]

On September 29, aLCWD of Web Sockets API was published:

  http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-websockets-20110929/

Please send all comments to public-webapps@w3.org by October 21.