Coordination

Anne van Kesteren annevk at annevk.nl
Sat Apr 13 03:51:21 PDT 2013


On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:35 AM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've also sent my share of API feedback and been met with sometimes no
> responses at all which I personally interpreted as "it's shipped or close
> enough to; it's too late to make an API change now". Of course, that's my
> interpretation :-)

Whenever that happens feel free to bug me about it. If a WG does not
response to feedback they are violating the W3C Process and it's
pretty trivial to escalate that. I'm happy to help out. WGs are
required to address feedback and reply to it. Furthermore, if you
disagree with their response you can raise a Formal Objection which
will make it even harder for them. I try not to resort to
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/ much, but if a WG is a pain it
can definitely help. (As you point out though, "sites rely on it" is a
pretty strong argument. The constraints there are not different from
TC39.)


> If we want a useful "API idiomacy review" process, this process has to start
> at a time it's still possible to change the API. One solution is for all
> vendors to submit an API to the W3C (or at least public-script-coord)
> *before* shipping it. I'm doubtful this will ever happen, but I'd be happy
> to read if major browsers representative said here that they're committed to
> never ship before the API has been reviewed for idiomacy.

I'm certainly pushing for this at Mozilla. My impression thus far
(I've only been here a couple of months) is that we have lacked
resources for that with Firefox OS and were under severe time
constraints. We are committed though to implementing the APIs that
come out of the standardization process too and we'll do our best to
migrate everyone towards those.


--
http://annevankesteren.nl/


More information about the es-discuss mailing list