On October 10, the consortium formerly started the Web Platform WG
[Charter] thus terminating WebApps.
My expectation is this change will have little to no impact on any work
started in WebApps. That said, please note the charter indicates
WebApps' less developed specs (f.ex. the Editing specs) need some
"incubation" before they may proceed on the Recommendation track.
However, that was effectively how WebApps operated so I don't see this
as a change - a spec still needs implementation commitments before
advancing to the later Recommendation stages.
The WPWG's "work mode" is documented in [WorkMode]. The group will
continue the use of existing Github repos and mail lists for all
technical work (new spec repos will be created if/when needed). Github
will be used for bug/issue tracking (although a small number of WebApps'
specs will continue to use Bugzilla, at least for a while). The group
will continue the use of existing IRC channels (f.ex. #webapps).
The WPWG has its own Github repo [Github] and the group will not use
W3C's wiki. (Only a small number of WebApps' Editors actively use W3C
wiki documents (primarily IDB v2 features, Pointer Lock v2 features,
Gamepad v2 features, and D3E) and I will work with those Editors to move
their relevant wiki information to their spec's repo.)
To formally participate in WPWG, please ask your AC rep to register you
via [Register] and if you are a member of WebApps as an Invited Expert,
you must submit a new IE application [IE].
If you have any questions, concerns, etc., please let us know.
On October 12, 2015 at 8:23:25 AM, Arthur Barstow ([hidden email]) wrote:
> Hi All,
> On October 10, the consortium formerly started the Web Platform WG
> [Charter] thus terminating WebApps.
> My expectation is this change will have little to no impact on any work
> started in WebApps. That said, please note the charter indicates
> WebApps' less developed specs (f.ex. the Editing specs) need some
> "incubation" before they may proceed on the Recommendation track.
> However, that was effectively how WebApps operated so I don't see this
> as a change - a spec still needs implementation commitments before
> advancing to the later Recommendation stages.
For incubation, members are welcomed to bring their specs Web Incubator CG:
The WICG can help members get specs into shape and connect them with developers and other implementers. It's a fast, IPR friendly way, to get ideas road-tested before formal standardization.
> The WPWG has its own Github repo [Github] and the group will not use
> W3C's wiki. (Only a small number of WebApps' Editors actively use W3C
> wiki documents (primarily IDB v2 features, Pointer Lock v2 features,
> Gamepad v2 features, and D3E) and I will work with those Editors to move
> their relevant wiki information to their spec's repo.)
Please please please (please!), don't use a single repository as a dumpling ground for spec - it makes it impossible for people to follow individual work items, file bugs, etc.. Please use separate repositories for each work item.
I would suggest maybe making your own organization on Github, and then managing your specs through that. Again, see:
On 10/12/15 12:23 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> Please use separate repositories for each work item.
Yes, that is expectation -> all of the WG's specs will have their own
repo (mostly are under github.com/w3c/<short-name>/) and my expectation
is that any new spec the group starts would also have its own/separate repo.
(My expectation is the group's Github repo will mostly be used for admin
In reply to this post by Marcos Caceres-4
thanks for the info.
As I understand it, this has no practical impact on the editing taskforce and these are more suggestions for future task forces, right?
As for separate repositories: We have changed the number and names of the specs we need numerous times now. If we create and delete a repository every time we change the name or the numbers and types of specs, it would have turned into a complete mess.
Essentially we only have one single work item which is editing. We should now now be very far away from being very clear on the names of some of at least one the specs (the one containing beforeEdit/Edit or beforeInput/Input), and once that happens, I would be all for moving it to it's own repository if we are clear that this these events will also be added to old contentEditable elements, text areas, input fields, etc. .
We couldn't do that hitherto because as late as late August it was suggested we merge that spec with some of the other specs.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Marcos Caceres <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 18:48:31 +0200, Johannes Wilm <[hidden email]> wrote:
That is how I understand it too.
Yes. I think the point isn't that every document written needs a new repo, but that mixing two different things like Web Messaging and ContentEditable in the same repo is a bad idea.
Yeah. We might work out how to split out editing into separate work items, but that isn't the highest priority work.
Note that we also haven't worked out properly what to do with HTML, which is clearly far too much stuff to have in one repo, beyond noting that "it is clearly too big to be a single work item"...
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|