Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Server-Sent Events; deadline November 28

[Glenn Adams]

+1

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Arthur Barstow 
wrote:

> The latest interop data Zhiqiang generated for Server-sent Events [All]
> indicates 102/124 passes and [<2] isolates the 22 failures with less than
> two implementations including 9 failures which are due to Web IDL
> implementation bugs (thus, not counting the WebIDL failures the pass rate
> is 111/124 or ~90%).
>
> The non Web IDL failures are:
>
> 1. http://www.w3c-test.org/eventsource/dedicated-worker/
> eventsource-constructor-non-same-origin.htm
> 2. http://www.w3c-test.org/eventsource/shared-worker/
> eventsource-constructor-non-same-origin.htm
> 3. http://www.w3c-test.org/eventsource/format-field-retry-bogus.htm
>
> My take on these failures is:
>
> #1 and #2 test the UA's error handling of URLs that cannot be resolved
> (f.ex. unsupported URL scheme, URL doesn't exist). The failures appear to
> be relatively low priority implementation bugs (see [Bug119974]) that seem
> unlikely to occur in a tested deployment.
>
> #3 tests the UA's handling of invalid data value for the retry
> (constructor) parameter. This test actually now passes when I run it on FF
> beta 34.0 so it should be removed from [<2]. Regardless, the failure
> appears to be a relatively low priority implementation bug that seems
> unlikely to occur in a tested deployment.
>
> As such, this is Call for Consensus to publish SSE as a Proposed
> Recommendation. If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please
> reply to this e-mail by November 28 at the latest. Positive response is
> preferred and encouraged, and silence will be considered as agreement with
> the proposal.
>
> The [ED] has changed since the [CR] was published (see [Diff]) so this
> proposal assumes that if/when there is a resource commitment to include
> changes on the TR track, that will be done separately.
>
> -Thanks, AB
>
> [All] 
> [<2] 
> [Bug119974] 
>
> [CR] 
> [ED] 
> [Diff]  2Fdev.w3.org%2Fcvsweb%2F~checkout~%2Fhtml5%2Feventsource%2FOverview.html%
> 3Frev%3D1.233%3Bcontent-type%3Dtext%252Fhtml&doc2=http%3A%
> 2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2Fcvsweb%2F~checkout~%2Fhtml5%
> 2Feventsource%2FOverview.html%3Frev%3D1.258%3Bcontent-type%3Dtext%252Fhtml>
>
>
>
>
>

CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Server-Sent Events; deadline November 28

[Arthur Barstow]

The latest interop data Zhiqiang generated for Server-sent Events [All] 
indicates 102/124 passes and [<2] isolates the 22 failures with less 
than two implementations including 9 failures which are due to Web IDL 
implementation bugs (thus, not counting the WebIDL failures the pass 
rate is 111/124 or ~90%).


The non Web IDL failures are:

1. 
http://www.w3c-test.org/eventsource/dedicated-worker/eventsource-constructor-non-same-origin.htm 

2. 
http://www.w3c-test.org/eventsource/shared-worker/eventsource-constructor-non-same-origin.htm

3. http://www.w3c-test.org/eventsource/format-field-retry-bogus.htm

My take on these failures is:

#1 and #2 test the UA's error handling of URLs that cannot be resolved 
(f.ex. unsupported URL scheme, URL doesn't exist). The failures appear 
to be relatively low priority implementation bugs (see [Bug119974]) that 
seem unlikely to occur in a tested deployment.


#3 tests the UA's handling of invalid data value for the retry 
(constructor) parameter. This test actually now passes when I run it on 
FF beta 34.0 so it should be removed from [<2]. Regardless, the failure 
appears to be a relatively low priority implementation bug that seems 
unlikely to occur in a tested deployment.


As such, this is Call for Consensus to publish SSE as a Proposed 
Recommendation. If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, 
please reply to this e-mail by November 28 at the latest. Positive 
response is preferred and encouraged, and silence will be considered as 
agreement with the proposal.


The [ED] has changed since the [CR] was published (see [Diff]) so this 
proposal assumes that if/when there is a resource commitment to include 
changes on the TR track, that will be done separately.


-Thanks, AB

[All] 
[<2] 
[Bug119974] 

[CR] 
[ED] 
[Diff]