CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2

Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2

Arthur Barstow
This is Call for Consensus to publish a  Working Draft of the DOM spec
using #ED as the basis.

Please note Lachlan will continue to edit the ED during this CfC period.

Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD.

If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
to this e-mail by December 2 at the latest.

Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.

-Thanks, AB

#ED <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2

Ms2ger
On 11/25/2012 02:49 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> This is Call for Consensus to publish a  Working Draft of the DOM spec
> using #ED as the basis.
>
> Please note Lachlan will continue to edit the ED during this CfC period.
>
> Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
> WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD.
>
> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
> to this e-mail by December 2 at the latest.
>
> Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
> will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.

*sigh*

Same objections as to the XHR WD.

Ms2ger


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2

Arthur Barstow
On 11/25/12 10:19 AM, ext Ms2ger wrote:
> Same objections as to the XHR WD.

Are you talking about
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0542.html>?

The DOM ED includes the following in the boilerplate:

[[
Living Standard:
   http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/
]]

What (else) are you looking for?

-Thanks, AB



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2

Adam Barth-5
In reply to this post by Arthur Barstow
It seems like we should be consistent in our handling of the DOM and
XHR documents.  For example, the copy of DOM at
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html> lacks a
Status of this Document section, but presumably the version published
by this working group will have one.  If we decide that the SotD
section of XHR ought to acknowledge the WHATWG, we likely should do
the same for this document.

The copy of DOM at
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html> seems to
give appropriate credit by linking to the Living Standard and listing
sensible Editors.  Will the version of the document published by this
working group also give credit appropriately?

Adam


On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Arthur Barstow <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is Call for Consensus to publish a  Working Draft of the DOM spec using
> #ED as the basis.
>
> Please note Lachlan will continue to edit the ED during this CfC period.
>
> Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD;
> and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD.
>
> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to
> this e-mail by December 2 at the latest.
>
> Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will
> be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
>
> -Thanks, AB
>
> #ED <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>
>
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[admin] Consistent Boilerplate and Status sections for EDs [Was: Re: CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2]

Arthur Barstow
Hi Adam,

Yes I agree it would be good if the EDs for XHR and DOM (and URL and
Fullscreen) used relatively consistent boilerplate (by boilerplate/BP, I
mean the top of the documentto the first section that contains text such
as the Abstract, SotD, ToC, Intro, etc.).

Some people may not realize the so-called Technical Reports "PubRules"
do _not_ apply to EDs. This provides Editors - who do a substantial part
of the group's work - some flexibility  but it also means an ED's BP
and/or SotD can be (significantly) different than the BP and SotD of
the  related  TR and that can result in some confusion.

Ideally, the BP and SotD section of WebApps' EDs would be "effectively"
the same as the versions of the spec created as TRs. And indeed, of the
group's ~40 specs, this is true for most (~35) of the specs.

A few Editors, for what I will characterize as "non technical reasons",
have decided to make relatively significant changes to their BP and in a
few cases the ED  does not even have a SotD section.

Although my preference is for the BP and SotD parts of EDs and TRs
versions be mostly the same, I am not at all interested in creating
publication rules for EDs nor am I willing to track the conformance of
such rules.

In the future, for these few specs where the ED's BP and/or SotD is
different than what is required for TR, it would make sense to ask the
Editors to create a TR version _before_ the CfC starts^1. And yes, my
expectation is TRs will give appropriate attribution.

-AB

^1 I will ask the XHR and DOM Editors to create a TR version of their
specs now so they can be used during their CfCs.



On 11/25/12 11:36 AM, ext Adam Barth wrote:

> It seems like we should be consistent in our handling of the DOM and
> XHR documents.  For example, the copy of DOM at
> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html> lacks a
> Status of this Document section, but presumably the version published
> by this working group will have one.  If we decide that the SotD
> section of XHR ought to acknowledge the WHATWG, we likely should do
> the same for this document.
>
> The copy of DOM at
> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html> seems to
> give appropriate credit by linking to the Living Standard and listing
> sensible Editors.  Will the version of the document published by this
> working group also give credit appropriately?
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Arthur Barstow <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> This is Call for Consensus to publish a  Working Draft of the DOM spec using
>> #ED as the basis.
>>
>> Please note Lachlan will continue to edit the ED during this CfC period.
>>
>> Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD;
>> and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD.
>>
>> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to
>> this e-mail by December 2 at the latest.
>>
>> Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will
>> be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
>>
>> -Thanks, AB
>>
>> #ED <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>
>>
>>
>>
>>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CfC: publish WD of DOM; deadline December 2

Arthur Barstow
In reply to this post by Arthur Barstow
Hi Lachlan,

Given the discussions about spec boilerplate, Status of this Document  
section, etc., Ithink we need a PubReady TR version of the DOM spec
before this CfC can continue.As such, please create a TR version now and
reply with the URLso this CfC can proceed with the document WebApps will
submit for publication.

-Thanks, AB


On 11/25/12 8:49 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:

> This is Call for Consensus to publish a  Working Draft of the DOM spec
> using #ED as the basis.
>
> Please note Lachlan will continue to edit the ED during this CfC period.
>
> Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
> WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of
> the WD.
>
> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
> to this e-mail by December 2 at the latest.
>
> Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
> will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
>
> -Thanks, AB
>
> #ED <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>
>
>
>
>