Subject: Re: [hybi] HyBi WG update

From: Ian Hickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 07:18:36 +0000 (UTC)

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
>
> The 00 version Ian Hickson has update contains in the Abstract section, 
> the following note:
> 
>      NOTE!  THIS COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT IS OBSOLETE.
> 
>        For an up-to-date copy of this specification, please see:
>
>        http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-socket-protocol/
>       
> this note is against the IETF common practice, so we invite Ian to remove it.

The note is there because Joe requested that I not update the IETF copy as 
often as the WHATWG copy. I need implementors looking at the latest 
version of the draft. I don't really mind if they look at the HTML copy on 
the WHATWG site (part of the Web Apps 1.0 draft), the text copy on the 
WHATWG site, or the text copy on the IETF site, so long as what they look 
at is up to date. Should I resume sending updates to the IETF draft as I 
make them?

> If the authors that want to make available proposed changes that aren't 
> yet in a published ID then the canonical approach would be to keep the 
> "current edits" version on tools.ietf.org in the WG's Subversion 
> repository (both as xml source and txt) : 
> http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/hybi/

Is there a reference anywhere that explains how to get an account there? 
I'd be happy to update my scripts to also upload a copy there. If we can 
host the latest copy of the spec there I'm more than happy to change the 
link in the note at the top to point to that draft instead, if that would 
make everyone at the IETF less nervous.

> We also invite Ian to remove the following Author's note section [...]

For why?

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

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:35:32 +0200

On 21.07.2010 09:18, Ian Hickson wrote:
> ...
> ...

I think you first need an account for tools.ietf.org, see

   <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/newlogin>

and then talk to the owner of the repo (that is, the chairs) to get 
write access to subversion.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:01:47 +0100

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.

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. Are you not following IETF list discussion except in sporadic bursts?

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ian Hickson
Sent: 21 July 2010 08:19
To: Salvatore Loreto
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [hybi] HyBi WG update

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
>
> The 00 version Ian Hickson has update contains in the Abstract 
> section, the following note:
> 

The note is there because Joe requested that I not update the IETF copy as often as the WHATWG copy. I need implementors looking at the latest version of the draft. I don't really mind if they look at the HTML copy on the WHATWG site (part of the Web Apps 1.0 draft), the text copy on the WHATWG site, or the text copy on the IETF site, so long as what they look at is up to date. Should I resume sending updates to the IETF draft as I make them?

> If the authors that want to make available proposed changes that 
> aren't yet in a published ID then the canonical approach would be to 
> keep the "current edits" version on tools.ietf.org in the WG's 
> Subversion repository (both as xml source and txt) :

Is there a reference anywhere that explains how to get an account there? 
I'd be happy to update my scripts to also upload a copy there. If we can host the latest copy of the spec there I'm more than happy to change the link in the note at the top to point to that draft instead, if that would make everyone at the IETF less nervous.

For why?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
_______________________________________________
hybi mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:50:58 +0100

Hi Ian,

>at is up to date. Should I resume sending updates to the IETF draft as I 
No. You should post a new version not frequently than once a week, 
unless you have some massive changes, or urgent fixes.

And I would like to remind you that all non-editorial changes (and if in 
doubt about whether a particular change is editorial or not, please 
treat it as non-editorial) should be tracked using the issue tracker as 
described earlier by the HyBi WG chairs. At minimum, I would expect that 
you post summary of any non-editorial change to the mailing list, before 
you publish a new version of the draft that incorporates such change.

Best Regards,
Alexey

-- 
IETF Application Area Director, <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html>
Internet Messaging Team Lead, <http://www.isode.com>
JID: same as my email address

---

From: Ian Hickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:44:50 +0000 (UTC)

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, [email-masked] wrote:
> 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.

---

From: Greg Wilkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:32:21 +1000

> the bugs removed, rather than a version that we _know_ is buggy.

How can anybody implement a constantly moving target into which discussed
speculative ideas are added?

Regardless - I think you are confusing two concerns.    Discussions about
how to design the websocket protocol are free to occur anywhere in any forum
what so ever.

However, discussions about the IETF draft protocol specification document
should either occur on the IETF list or be summarized on the list.
Changes to the draft should be discussed on list and peer reviewed before
they are put into the next version of the draft.   When acting as an IETF
editor, you should be acting as a tech writer and not as a tech designer.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 01:24:30 +0100

> 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...

> Discussion will be where discussion is, not much we can do about that.

WHATWG shouldn't be recommended.

> I'm 
> 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 

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
development.

Should your work processes take precedence over the workgroup?

Lloyd Wood
[email-masked]
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood

---

From: Adam Barth <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:42:36 -0700

> speculative ideas are added?

This is standard operating procedure for browser vendors.  If we
waited for specs to stop moving before gaining implementation
experience, we'd never get anything done.  If you'd like to see how
this works in practice, I recommend looking over the history of the
HTML parsing algorithm in HTML5.

Adam

---

From: Willy Tarreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 03:00:12 +0200

> HTML parsing algorithm in HTML5.

And in fact, it's thanks to early implementers among browser editors
that we know this version does not work anymore !

Willy

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:01:46 +0100

Internal parsing of received data is a bit different from back-and-forth
interaction between client/server.

The history of HTML is not the history of HTTP.

Lloyd Wood
[email-masked]

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:52:18 +0100

> HTML parsing algorithm in HTML5.

FWIW, it's SOP for email and XMPP folk, too, but the difference seems  
to be that we're happy to track changes once a week or once a month,  
and know we're experimentally implementing a known version, rather  
than have new variants of the protocol out every day, which would  
mean you should have no clear idea if you're even meant to be  
interoperating with another implementation.

I think this issue is likely a lot more of an issue with a network  
protocol, incidentally, than with HTML parsing, which I suspect can  
be done in isolation.

Speaking of seeing how this works in practise, I would note in  
passing that browsers have a quite horrible reputation for  
interoperability failure in terms of HTML rendering differences, from  
what I've observed; maybe changing tactics would even be worthwhile  
investigating there.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email-masked] - xmpp:[email-masked]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:52:31 +0100

> than responding to each one individually, which would result in  

If you're saying you're overworked, I'm sure a volunteer to take over  
editorship of the document can be found. This would also leave you  
much more at liberty to discuss the technical aspects of the  
document, and propose text, without any conflict of interest,  
accidental or otherwise.

Dave.