On 04/09/17 23:34, Jim Blandy wrote:
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:36 AM, David Burns <dbu...@mozilla.com> wrote:
I don't think anyone would disagree with the reasons for doing this. I,
like James who brought it up earlier, am concerned that we from the emails
appear to think that implementing the wire protocol would be sufficient to
making sure we have the same semantics.
LOL, give us a little credit, okay? The authors of the email do not think
that. We want to have a properly written specification and conformance
tests. I think you're reading "we have no interest in established
standardization processes" when what we wrote was "the process is in very
early stages".
Do you think the Browser Testing Tools WG is the right body to work on a JS
debugging and console protocol, used by interactive developer tools? That
seems like a surprising choice to me.
It is certainly not the only possible venue, but if you want to do the
work at the W3C then it's probably the easiest way to get things going
from a Process point of view, since this kind of protocol would be in
the general remit of the group, and the rechartering could add it
specifically. Certainly the people currently in the group aren't the
right ones to do the work, but adding new participants to work
specifically on this would be trivial.
Also - at least as far as I know - this is not where the current
participants in the discussion (Kenneth Auchenberg or Christian Bromann, to
name two) have been working. Is having a previously uninvolved standards
committee take up an area in which current activity is occurring elsewhere
considered friendly and cooperative behavior? It seems unfriendly to me. I
would like to avoid upsetting the people I'm hoping to work closely with.
I think you have misinterpreted the intent here. I don't think anyone is
interested in doing a hostile takeover of existing work. But there is
concern that the work actually happens. Pointing at remotedebug.org,
which has been around since 2013 without producing any specification
materials, isn't helping assuage my concerns, and I guess others are
having a similar reaction. It is of course entirely possible that
there's work going on that we can't see. But my interpretation of
David's email is that he is trying to offer you options, not force you
down a certain path. The W3C is not always the right venue to work in,
but it is sometimes sought out by organisations who would likely
participate in this work because of its relatively strong IPR policy.
I should stress that irrespective of venue I would expect this
standardisation effort to take years; people always underestimate the
work and time required for standards work. It will certainly require us
to commit resources to make it happen.
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
