Work Items are CGRs and Specifications as defined in the CBGP. Proposals are CGRs but not Specifications. Fixes #11. #14
Conversation
hober
added
charter
do not merge
|
I'd appreciate your eyes on this, @jyasskin. |
hober
changed the title
TanviHacks
left a comment
TanviHacks
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These changes look good to me.
jyasskin
left a comment
jyasskin
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this says what you want it to say, but I left several nits that might help improve the precision or clarity.
I don't think it's a good idea to try to use the lack of a precise specification as the way to tell developers that an idea isn't supported by multiple implementers. A precise specification can help implementers make the decision of whether they support the idea, and we shouldn't handicap proposals from non-browser-vendors by making them prove themselves with just the explainer.
However, if the CG in general does want to pick that as the mechanism, it's better to have it written down, as this PR does, than not.
hober
force-pushed
the
issue-11
branch
2 times, most recently
from
756e885 to
4ffa850
Compare
|
@jyasskin wrote:
Thanks for these! I've rebased this and refined the wording quite a lot based on @jyasskin's excellent review feedback. Please take another look, @TanviHacks, @erik-anderson, and @jyasskin. |
|
Rebased again, since #19 landed. |
| as defined in the | ||
| <a href=https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/>Community and | ||
| Business Group Process</a>—a special kind of Community Group Report | ||
| whose purpose is to enable interoperability between independent |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"--a special kind of CGR whose purpose is to enable interop between indep. impl. of the feature it defines."
I guess this clarity differentiates this CG's "specifications" from other potential types of specifications, but was anyone actually confused about this point?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was my attempt to preserve @martinthomson's change from #19. I'd be happy to tweak this further, if you have a suggestion.
|
I've landed a couple of tweaks based on @travisleithead's review. @TanviHacks @erik-anderson, please take a look. I'd like to land this soon. |
hober
changed the title
dbaron
left a comment
dbaron
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A lot of this looks like great clarification. I have a few minor comments, and in the middle one more substantive one.
… relationships of Proposals, Work Items, and Community Group Reports. Fixes #11.
Co-Authored-By: Jeffrey Yasskin <[email protected]>
…ocess; Proposals are not.
|
Rebased now that #21 has landed. |
My attempt to address #11.