Re: [hybi] HyBi WG update

[Ian Hickson <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, [e-mail] 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.


> 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. 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). 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.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'