Re: Where to discuss TR process issues? [Was: Re: [eventsource] Is Server-Sent Events ready for LC? ; deadline July 1

2011-07-09 Thread Charles McCathieNevile

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

2011-07-08 Thread Arthur Barstow

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

2011-07-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
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

2011-07-06 Thread Arthur Barstow

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

2011-07-06 Thread Arthur Barstow

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

2011-07-06 Thread Arthur Barstow

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

2011-07-06 Thread Ian Hickson
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

2011-07-06 Thread Ian Hickson
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

2011-07-06 Thread Ian Jacobs

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

2011-07-05 Thread Arthur Barstow
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

2011-07-05 Thread Daniel Veditz
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