Re: [hybi] HyBi WG update

<> Thu, 22 July 2010 00:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B01F3A6840 for <>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uxvdN9tiXeRh for <>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFBFC3A6B2C for <>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: []
Received: (qmail 17707 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2010 00:24:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 22 Jul 2010 00:24:29 -0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 01:24:29 +0100
From: <>
To: <>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 01:24:30 +0100
Thread-Topic: [hybi] HyBi WG update
Thread-Index: AcspND+70xbTH8quS7ef7Njx+l+nYQ==
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [hybi] HyBi WG update
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:24:15 -0000

On 21 Jul 2010, at 23:44, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, wrote:
>> You don't need implementers implementing from the latest revision of the 
>> draft.
>> You need implementers implementing from a _considered_ version of the 
>> draft, and a fixed referencable point at that.
> Sure, but given that implementers are going to implement the spec 
> regardless, I'd much rather they implemented the latest version, with all 
> the bugs removed, rather than a version that we _know_ is buggy.

But that's a moving target. Then you can't contrast degrees of interoperability,
or chase down problems. I personally wouldn't implement based on 'whatever
specification I grabbed from CVS on a random date'.

The latest version could just as well be the version with new bugs
hastily introduced. Known bugs are preferable to unknown bugs...

>> On the author's note: We've already discussed not promoting discussion 
>> on WHATWG. This is an IETF draft; all discussion needs to be on hybi. 
> Discussion will be where discussion is, not much we can do about that.

WHATWG shouldn't be recommended.

> I'm 
> happy to adjust the note to point out that the IETF would rather own all 
> discussion and not have discussion elsewhere, but that wasn't the request, 
> the request was just to remove the note altogether, which doesn't seem 
> constructive (after all, we want to encourage feedback, and to do so we 
> need to say where the feedback should go).

>From most workgroup drafts, it's indicated in the filename. Yes, this
is a bit of a covert signal to insiders such as workgroup chairs, so
say to the hybi mailing list.

> Clarification from the chairs 
> as to the reason behind the request would be helpful here.
>> Are you not following IETF list discussion except in sporadic bursts?
> I only reply sporadically, because I work on a number of other parts of 
> the WHATWG specification, and tend to work on each part for a few days 
> before moving on to the next. This allows me to respond to feedback in 
> bulk, so that many related points of view can be addressed at once rather 
> than responding to each one individually, which would result in much more 
> e-mail overall.

meMeMEmemeMememe... this is not nurturing discussion, which is something
you have expressed a desire to see happen. Your responses are no
longer all sent in one bulk email, but is sent long after other participants
have given up on discussion. We're discussing the text on where to send
feedback and you're requesting clarification from the are-they-still-there
chairs after, what, two months? That does not bode well for protocol

Should your work processes take precedence over the workgroup?

Lloyd Wood